Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

melovedata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 763 posts

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#621

Post by munk-a »

kelnos wrote: post #576
rayiner wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay. I'm not sure if its objectively "nuts" but almost 25% of LGBT voters supported Romney over Obama. That's accounting for the fact that openly LGBT voters are much younger than other voters: twice as likely to be 18-34 and half as likely to be 55+. Median age is about 35, versus 50 for the overall population. Romney won 37% of folks 18-29 and 51% of folks 45-64.…

Obviously all people have different kinds of policy opinions, and the "R" and "D" buckets are way too coarse to describe everyone. Someone who is gay can just as easily be a fiscal conservative (for example) as someone who is straight. But what I can't understand is how someone -- even if they agree with most of their chosen party's platform -- could vote for a party whose leadership largely wants to erase them. I ju…

As someone on the D side of things I'm generally in the same camp as you opinion-wise but not all republicans are pray-away-the-gay crazy - that may be Pence's particular brand but Romney ended up legalizing civil unions while governor of MA. Partisan politics like to paint things as black and white but they're a lot more grey than that.

Similarly R-side folks might believe that all D-folks are Trotskyists while that's a rather rare stance to have - certainly the D-side is more towards interventionalism - but nobody with serious power on the D end of things (not even bernie) is advocating for a planned economy.

I feel very strongly about moving towards proportional representation for the house over FPTP slotting. I think the extremism in the current political climate is largely fueled by this us vs. them choice - get us better representation so we can all see that Trotskyists pull one or two house reps nation-wide and slice off of the Dems at large... And watch the white-supremists and westboro baptist church folks get kicked out of the GOP at large and end up with a seat or two themselves. These are fringe groups[1]...

Our current voting system allows negative campaign ads to be just as effective as positive ones - knocking your opponent down 3 pts is the same as raising yourself 3 pts... but it's far easier to craft negative campaign ads so the electorate is constantly submerged in hateful vitriol. We need election reform so we can stop viewing each other as the enemy.

1. Please note, the current administration has actually started embracing these groups more, but this is a new development and should be a clear signal that the country is in trouble.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#622

Post by munk-a »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #575
Spivak wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The common person primarily votes based solely on a historical allegiance to a political party (be it individually formed or inherited) with about 75% of America essentially being unmovable D or R safe votes. This is one of those statements that sounds bad on the surface but is actually totally reasonable and has nothing to do with some trope about the "uninformed masses" or whatever. Locally the individual matters…

Here's the problem: Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve. The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters…

I think attributing it to "having the right to be wrong" is overly simplistic and you're missing a big chunk of what the core problem is - when you walk into a voting booth you are allowed to[1] check either the D or the R box. If you've followed a few rounds of elections chances are you've held your nose at least one of the times you've voted. Can you be a member of the GOP that is pretty well convinced that while the conservative courts might overturn Roe vs. Wade that gay marriage is essentially set in stone at this point? I think that's reasonable, I actually think that's pretty correct... No matter how extreme of a Mike Pence we get in office gay marriage is here to stay - if you're taking that as a given then maybe you're concerned about gun rights or the economy of one of a plethora of issues.

We're all complicated rainbows of opinions and when voting day comes around we're forced to either be red or blue and that's a problem.

1. Effectively, obviously you can vote third party by FPTP single slot elections make this incredibly ineffective - sorry... I really really wish this weren't the case.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#623

Post by Lammy »

edmundsauto wrote: post #457
Lammy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tabloids aren’t new. Ever checked out the headlines in print at a grocery store check-out? If the NYPost want to be The Publication Who Cried Wolf and everything that comes with that reputation, let them.

Weren't they still able to do it on their own properties? Twitter has decided it doesn't want to amplify this kind of content, that seems reasonable.

If that’s what you need to call it to be able to justify censorship to yourself, sure.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#624

Post by munk-a »

rightbyte wrote: post #586
munk-a wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to need some sources on conspiracy theories being harmless - Pizzagate[1] lead to someone firing off live rounds in a pizza parlor, QAnon is also tied to some kidnappings[2], anti-vaxers have led to somewhere in the range of 50-60k deaths[3] - anti-maskers... it's a bit too early to tell but some folks put the number around 130k[4]... Conspiracy theories aren't harmless. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piz…

[3] doesn't claim any numbers on how many surplus deaths 'anti-vaxers' are the cause of.

Ah sorry - to infer, the MMR vaccine had measles on a steady downward trend - the article is highlighting a 15% raise in cases. I think it's safe to attribute 15% of the 140k worldwide deaths to the anti-vax movement since we were actually approaching eliminating that disease (like we did smallpox)

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#625

Post by duxup »

ColanR wrote: post #480
duxup wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else" I've seen that claim too and found it questionable. Almost every major news outlet that would cover international news I found had some story about coronavirus pretty dang early. It wasn't a breathless story predicting the impact, but they covered it. I feel like most media "media does this" or "didn't do that" is mostly just what passed in front of some…

The difference is, most news outlets were spending their time saying the coronavirus was less severe than the flu.

"most news outlets were spending their time saying the coronavirus was less severe than the flu"

I don't recall many news outlets putting out official positions...

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#626

Post by millstone »

NeverFade wrote: post #597
stjohnswarts wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does matter! Twitter and Facebook swore that they would limit this kind of garbage rumor mill information for the election. if NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info. Twitter is a private company and they are trying to be more responsible about slowing the spread of disinformation. This is a good thing and not a bad thing.

> NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info. Did Twitter or Facebook ever ask The Atlantic to "show them how they verified the information" about Trump calling war heroes "losers" and "suckers"? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a... That story was based on 100% anonymous sourced. Unverified, unverifiable by definition. People who…

Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources, which prevents many stories from being independently verified. However they can be verified by other news outlets, who have their own sources. The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP. But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit.

The "double standard" idea makes my blood boil, because it casts basic facts in partisan terms. Twitter fact-checked Trump tweets, but not Biden tweets. But that's not a double standard; it's a single standard, and it just so happens that Biden does not tweet outright lies such as "California sends a ballot to anyone living in the state."

Twitter clearly does not want to be in this position and the right-wing misinformation machine is exploiting that aggressively. The NYPost story got a huge Streisand-effect boost. It's impossible to give Twitter good advice today.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#627

Post by dionian »

Spooky23 wrote: post #567
reaperducer wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for re…

The Post was the newspaper with the good sports page and sport betting odds when I was growing up. The paper version pretty much is just that today. Online, it’s a different spin looking for a similar audience. Instead of cranky Jets fans, it’s targeting blue collar conservatives. The quality is much lower imo — they run native content that looks like Taboola.

So? I don't want Twitter deciding what I can and can't read.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#628

Post by dionian »

istjohn wrote: post #591
JohnBooty wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant. The NYPost is a platform with a (large) editorial slant. Why should one be obligated to amplify the other? The NYPost gets to have an absolutely massive editorial slant (endorsing presidential candidates, etc) but Twitter can't? Should the NYPost be forced to amplify the NYTimes? What about other heavily user-driven platforms like HN and StackOverflow? Should HN be forbid…

Twitter isn't obligated to allow anyone to use their platform, but as a user, I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad. Twitter is within its right to do whatever it wants, but I don't want it curating my feed anymore than I want my phone to decide who I can and ca…

Not to mention their rules are suspiciously narrowly enforced.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#629

Post by dionian »

JohnBooty wrote: post #619
istjohn wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter isn't obligated to allow anyone to use their platform, but as a user, I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad. Twitter is within its right to do whatever it wants, but I don't want it curating my feed anymore than I want my phone to decide who I can and ca…

I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad Those analogies are flawed, so I'll just address the issue directly. I do want Twitter to curate things, by filtering out news from biased sources with questionable alliances and borderline journalistic practices. I want the…

I've not heard any claims of dissenting opinions censored by the mods here, but im sure its possible.

Re: Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

#630

Post by dionian »

rbanffy wrote: post #548
JohnBooty wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant. The NYPost is a platform with a (large) editorial slant. Why should one be obligated to amplify the other? The NYPost gets to have an absolutely massive editorial slant (endorsing presidential candidates, etc) but Twitter can't? Should the NYPost be forced to amplify the NYTimes? What about other heavily user-driven platforms like HN and StackOverflow? Should HN be forbid…

I'd say the NY Post is free to post on the Gab network or on Parler. Twitter, a private company, is under no obligation to provide them a platform.

Should they continue be exempt from lawsuits per section 230
Post reply on HN