The Twitter Files • Hacker News Board

Re: The Twitter Files

#591

Post by Dudelander » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:35 AM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #118

andreyk wrote: post #108

It does not seem like this really exposed any new information - Twitter publicly justified its actions as being about its hacked data policy back when this all happened ( https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-mat... ). All this shows is some internal disagreement as to whether that was the right call. By the way, Facebook also suppressed the news story citing its misinformation policy ( https://www…

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Biden team asking Twitter to "handle" tweets they don't like. This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech.

Why not though? I don't see an issue if they use the same tools as everyone else does. Police departments do it all the time, as does the CDC.

Re: The Twitter Files

#592

Post by hidelooktropic » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:37 AM UTC

trentgreene wrote: post #566

Could someone explain to me how twitter has any legal obligation to provide a platform supporting all types of 1A protected content? Doesn’t that violate the owner of twitters 1A rights? If I owned a message board, and started deleting users post at random, or because of personal taste, would that be a 1A violation? I may or may not be an asshole, but it’s my message board. There are other parallels I can draw, but t…

The 1A states that congress should pass no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That's really all the 1A is. Not much room for interpretation.

So yes. Your example easily doesn't violate the 1A.

Re: The Twitter Files

#593

Post by eggnet » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:41 AM UTC

hgfdhgdfhgdf wrote: post #579

ajross wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This rubs me the wrong way, nobody in government should be telling Twitter to remove speech. Uh... Biden wasn't in government. It's so weird seeing all the posters in this thread arguing simultaneously that The Real Problem here is government control over the media and citing as evidence the fact that Twitter bent to the whims of someone not in government . I mean, why is government control such a big deal when pri…

It's weirder to use the false equivalence to equate Biden with a typical private citizen. The typical private citizen does not have the same power to suppress stories on Twitter.

Because the first amendment covers congress's limitations on lawmaking. Thereby indirectly limiting executive and judicial actions in the same way.

It doesn't cover someone (regardless of influence or position) asking a company to review content against their own terms of service and policies.

Re: The Twitter Files

#594

Post by we_never_see_it » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:41 AM UTC

afavour wrote: post #233

Dig1t wrote: post #16

I'm a moderate, not a Democrat and not a Republican. I think people on the left have a blind spot here, that the more suppression they use, the more division they create, and the more moderates and people on the right grow to resent them. I would have identified as a Democrat on pretty much every issue, but this authoritarian suppression of speech and ideas has just pushed me away from that side completely. At this p…

> the more division they create, and the more moderates and people on the [opposite side] grow to resent them This feels like a universal to me that applies to both parties. And I’m sorry, “authoritarian suppression of speech and ideas” is pure propaganda. No mainstream left leaning politician is actually perusing such an idea, it’s a boogeyman created by the right and by the looks of things it’s working great.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files

#595

Post by forgingahead » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:44 AM UTC

It's fascinating to me that so many (even a majority) of the direct comment replies to this post are a version of "this is nothing bad" or "nothing new to see here" or just arguing semantics about who was "running the govt" at the time (and so again, "nothing to see here").

This really comes across as party partisans, or party stooges, just flooding the conversation trying to massage the consensus. To people who are die-hard members of this political tribe, it's apparently impossible for them to see how vastly illiberal this situation was to regular people, and how uncomfortable it makes true political independents (never mind people on the opposite political tribe, where all it does is to further inflame their belief of being targeted unfairly all the time).

Re: The Twitter Files

#596

Post by M4v3R » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

trentgreene wrote: post #566

Could someone explain to me how twitter has any legal obligation to provide a platform supporting all types of 1A protected content? Doesn’t that violate the owner of twitters 1A rights? If I owned a message board, and started deleting users post at random, or because of personal taste, would that be a 1A violation? I may or may not be an asshole, but it’s my message board. There are other parallels I can draw, but t…

Honest answer (IANAL): it doesn’t have legal obligation to support all kinds of free speech. But in my opinion that’s because the governments fail to recognize these huge, influential social platforms for what they really are - utilities. They become pervasive and essential in lives of most people in the developed countries. And as such there should exist some checks and balances to make sure these platforms are not used to skew the opinion of the general public one way or another. Powerful people on both sides of political spectrum should not have direct lines to moderation teams “suggesting” what should be removed or suppressed, nor the moderators should act on their own accord when the speech in question isn’t explicitly violating any laws or site policies.

I know this might sound pretty idealistic but for anyone who thinks otherwise please entertain the possibility that such control could one day turn against you, your political candidate or your personal beliefs and suddenly it will be you who finds themselves in the crosshairs of censorship when there’s a story you believe should be brought up. It’s an ugly timeline that I don’t want to live in.

Re: The Twitter Files

#597

Post by colordrops » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

williamcotton wrote: post #324

Isn’t this was freedom looks like? We’ve got a hot mess of officials and other influential people trying to sway public opinion on a private platform that’s management is a hot mess of individual assumptions, bias and buck passing. Comparatively the CCP is a well-oiled machine when it comes to censorship.

If you have low expectations then yeah I guess.

Re: The Twitter Files

#598

Post by qup » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:48 AM UTC

nathanaldensr wrote: post #492

robomartin wrote: post #356

Quoted post unavailable.

The best post in this thread by far--amidst a sea of /r/politics-level text.

I noticed this story wasn't on the front page of /r/politics. The word "twitter" isn't on the front page either.

Re: The Twitter Files

#599

Post by M4v3R » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:50 AM UTC

unnamed76ri wrote: post #24

Just a couple weeks ago I had a comment downvoted and flagged for saying what this confirms. The political bias in tech circles is unreal sometimes.

It’s because you used a radioactive term “affect elections”. I’m not from USA but I noticed that nowadays even the slightest suggestion that X (whatever X might be) influenced the outcome of an election will get you downvoted/flagged into oblivion. That is, if you’re talking about the 2020 election, suggesting that anything was wrong with the 2016 ones is perfectly fine for some reason.

Re: The Twitter Files

#600

Post by M4v3R » Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 6:52 AM UTC

boc wrote: post #576

unnamed76ri wrote: post #24

Just a couple weeks ago I had a comment downvoted and flagged for saying what this confirms. The political bias in tech circles is unreal sometimes.

Nobody on the left cares about protecting Hunter Biden. IF he broke any laws, then he should be in jail. AFAIK, there's no current legal case against him. What you're seeing here is the "left" learning to not take everything the right screams about at face value. They watched Hillary get dragged through the mud with Benghazi over absolutely nothing of substance, including months of Congressional hearings. Thus this n…

> Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias.

What do you mean by “didn’t amplify”? They actively suppressed/banned the story (based on a policy that didn’t even apply in this case) instead of “not amplifying it”, these are two totally separate things.