There is another bigger side story on how Twitter used software created to block child pornography[1] to block NY Post URLs.
The Twitter Files
491–500 of 1001 posts
Re: The Twitter Files
#492Quoted post unavailable.
The best post in this thread by far--amidst a sea of /r/politics-level text.
Re: The Twitter Files
#493Most concerning thing here is that this proves political parties (including the white house[0]) have a direct line to Twitter[1] to get stuff they dislike removed. One would have to assume that there was also a direct line to other social medial platforms. It's so wild to have the slimy-ness of our American political system be revealed in yet another way. So in America you cannot say negative things about political l…
i also have a direct line to twitter to get posts removed. it's called the report button. i wouldn't be surprised if many individual twitter superusers have removed more content than the white house
Re: The Twitter Files
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They succeeded in their goal of preventing the story from harming their candidate a few days before the election. Did they? Of course Joe Biden was elected, but there's no evidence that this was the cause. I said "I haven't heard a good argument of why Hunter Biden should have been a crucial factor in deciding how to vote in 2020, when there were a ton of other vastly more important issues." And I still haven't hea…
https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/2020-election-outcome-would-di... A very quick search led me to that.
> Nearly four of five Americans who’ve been following the Hunter Biden laptop scandal believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a new poll.
> A similar percentage also said they’re convinced that information on the computer is real, with just 11% saying they thought it was “created by Russia,” according to the survey conducted by the New Jersey-based Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics.
So, if you were following the (as described) scandal, you the majority believes that "truthful" coverage would have changed things.
The same percentage believes that the computer is real.
So... the people who believe that there is something to the scandal also believe that if there was "truthful" coverage of the scandal, things would have been different.
I'm not sure that this is as convincing of a statistic as the numbers by themselves would lead one to believe.
Re: The Twitter Files
#495Most concerning thing here is that this proves political parties (including the white house[0]) have a direct line to Twitter[1] to get stuff they dislike removed. One would have to assume that there was also a direct line to other social medial platforms. It's so wild to have the slimy-ness of our American political system be revealed in yet another way. So in America you cannot say negative things about political l…
"One would have to assume" Have some perspective man or woman, you're acting like we're supposed to treat you like some babe in the woods and pretend this is genuinely shocking to you? Please. Yes, powerful governments influence actors within their nations. We get it. Let's all feign surprise for a few hours online. But that's not what bothers me. The most frustrating thing is that your perspective fails to acknowled…
Pragmatism in a political thread in hackernews? Did you get lost somewhere? I agree wholeheartedly with this view. People in these threads pretend to hype the outrage, I guess because it makes for more juicy comments, it feels like some kind of role-playing of finding bigger issues than they actually are.
These same people that are "censoring speech" be removing some pictures from Twitter, create wars - ukraine the latest - risk nuclear war, print money at will disrupting huge numbers of people and plant narratives about "the economy needs to cool down", and this is somehow the biggest issue of the day. You can call it whataboutism, but if you're worrying about drops of water on the floor while there's a raging fire in the living room, and someone mentions the raging fire, is it really whataboutism?
Re: The Twitter Files
#496I’m surprised by the outrage here. The proliferation of information is always subject to tampering - from news outlets picking headlines to social feeds oriented around engagement. Literally 100% of the flow of information is being shaped by interested parties, from the beginning to the end. (If you had told me that powerful people/organizations could not get tweets removed, I would have been surprised; based on my e…
to many, the information isn't as important as the narrative
Re: The Twitter Files
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this will almost certainly not hit the frontpage. The dupe detector has already started removing all the threads, even though on other topics it only engages after a topic actually gets picked up. Every effort will be taken to suppress this story, just like the story it's talking about. (And remember that dang has before admitted to manually editing scores and reordering the front page to suit his preferences for…
If what you say about dang is true, he needs to be fired.
You're posting on a site where I'd guess that even the figurehead (PG) is so sick of the petty squabbling that he now almost never posts here himself. I imagine PG has confidence in how @dang attempts to moderate HN.
My suggestion is that instead of thinking about the moderating preventing certain topics being discussed, understand that it's trying to discourage things that engender certain styles of discussions. @dang talks consistently and clearly about wanting posts that satisfy intellectual curiosity. There are other sites for that.
As one example to hopefully demonstrate this isn't some political bias: while other sites seem forever covered with articles and threads about negative Musk/Twitter stories, they very rarely make it from New to Front here, because I'd say moderators have little confidence they ever lead to HN-style discussions.
Re: The Twitter Files
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm scratching my head here. It's quite a leap to go from: > political parties... have a direct line to Twitter to get stuff they dislike removed ...to: > in America you cannot say negative things about political leaders online Twitter is not the internet. It's a tiny part of the internet. You can say whatever you want on many, many platforms. In fact, people can't stop talking about some of this stuff on HN and Redd…
It's a tiny part of the internet by volume. Dwarfed by breaking bad reruns. It's the whole internet in terms of journalist and politician communications.
No...? When the Hunter Biden thing was happening, I could hardly find a social media corner where people weren't obnoxiously talking about it.
Re: The Twitter Files
#499It's kind of interesting in the sense that reading internal emails is always kind of interesting...but otherwise, nothing here seems particularly shocking or groundbreaking. The only real revelation here seems to be that there existed some internal debate whether or not blocking the story was a good idea, which seems...kind of obvious? I'd be more surprised if there wasn't internal debate.
> The only real revelation here seems to be that there existed some internal debate whether or not blocking the story was a good idea, which seems...kind of obvious? You'd think it'd be obvious but so many people seem to be convinced that Twitter was the seat of wokeness and the moderation team sat on the throne. That there was a debate totally contradicts the characterization Matt is running for.
I don’t really see a debate. I see an email listing tweets from “the Biden team” and a response that it’s been taken care of.
Must be very cool to be running for president and have a team with a direct censorship line to one of the biggest news proliferation websites in the world. Just lost a few tweets and BAM!
Re: The Twitter Files
#500Politicians should never be able to directly influence the moderation of social media items they find politically unfavorable; I don't care which party does it. I can understand something that involves direct threats/calls to violence, but that's about it. Anyone that has used Twitter for some time knows the moderation was often not all that even, not just by pure political means but also threats of violence etc were…
Exactly. The fact so many don't understand this is discouraging. Just because you support a particular candidate shouldn't mean it is ok, because it could very easily go against you on another occasion. There needs to be a uniform standard and accountability for this.
what does a particular politician have to do with this? the "leak" literally said both the trump white house and the biden campaign lobbied to have posts removed
i think it's kind of funny that the government is lobbying corporation now, rather than the other way around.