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

The Twitter Files

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: The Twitter Files

#631

Post by pavlov »

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #618
_8j50 wrote: post #610

Why is this propaganda bullshit on the front page. I gotta ask about moderation on HN here. This is literally moderation, "the twitter files" my ass. They pretext political contributions and falsley connect legitimate moderation to that. Of course they should have blocked that story and still should. Oh, but get this, it's their platform they get to do what they want. They are not an impartial government agency. In t…

>Oh, but get this, it's their platform they get to do what they want. now it's Musk's platform and he gets to do whatever he wants you're cool with that, right?

Of course. I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise. It’s his to do as he pleases (without breaking laws).

In Twitter’s previous incarnation as a NASDAQ-listed company, Republicans were asking for more government control over it and other social media. Now that it’s a private company, that seems to have stopped.

Re: The Twitter Files

#632

Post by noncoml »

aphroz wrote: post #628
noncoml wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Both sides believe the same thing, being anti-Apple I believed the same on the opposite side but dang is here to watch and he's pretty impartial imho.

I’m not even pro-Apple. Just really sad to see Elon turn HN to his propaganda chamber.

Re: The Twitter Files

#633

Post by jeffreyrogers »

freejazz wrote: post #237
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where they removed tweets because they were asked to or banned accounts because they were asked to is a pretty big deal. And even though everyone knew they did that it wasn't in writing. It's kind of like the Snowden leaks, everyone who thought about the issues involved had a basic idea of what was going on but until it was out in the open people could just deny it.

Taibbi doesn't even say any of that

This tweet and the next one in the thread show exactly that https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064

Re: The Twitter Files

#634

Post by [deleted] »

noncoml wrote: post #615
_8j50 wrote: post #610

Why is this propaganda bullshit on the front page. I gotta ask about moderation on HN here. This is literally moderation, "the twitter files" my ass. They pretext political contributions and falsley connect legitimate moderation to that. Of course they should have blocked that story and still should. Oh, but get this, it's their platform they get to do what they want. They are not an impartial government agency. In t…

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

Re: The Twitter Files

#635

Post by malikNF »

M4v3R wrote: post #577
arthurofbabylon wrote: post #335

I’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…

> Literally 100% of the flow of information is being shaped by interested parties Honest question: would you be similarly dismissive if it turned out that it’s secretly mostly the right who “shapes the flow of information” in order to influence public’s opinion and has already used that power during the past election cycles? Remember - we’re not talking about some minor news outlet here. We are talking about social m…

I dont think OP was being dismissive about this whole thing, think OP explained their main point of view when they mentioned,

> A healthier starting point is a philosophical and systems examination of transparency, censorship, and how information proliferates, followed by systems and mechanisms that facilitate a favorable outcome. Anecdotal, sensational stories (like this Twitter Hunter Biden laptop cover-up) are exactly that: misleading anecdotes. They aren’t useful, and being caught up in them is not healthy.

This is the key takeaway in OPs post for me. I don’t think it matters if this is the right, left, up or down it’s about finding better ways to communicate that doesn’t depend on centralized organizations that are prone to corruption of this sort.

This keeps happening and we keep using centralized authorities, even when we start building systems that start off decentralized, they somehow end up being centralized. There's something wrong in the way we organize and think about things. We need to find a better way.

Re: The Twitter Files

#636

Post by djur »

chrisco255 wrote: post #411
afavour wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe all three are pornographic in nature. So while it’s still notable that the Biden team reached out manually to report them it does seem all the tweets were in violation of Twitter policy and fair game for removal.

Quoted post unavailable.

> some have alleged it contains child pornography as well (with Hunter in the scene)

This is a tremendously incendiary and defamatory claim to make on the basis of "some have alleged". Unless you're willing to name your sources you should not post claims like this.

Re: The Twitter Files

#637

Post by [deleted] »

ajross wrote: post #438
Dig1t wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: The Twitter Files

#638

Post by remarkEon »

chrisjc wrote: post #517
remarkEon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every story is about Elon Musk's ego. This story is about political operatives influencing what social media companies allow on their platform.

> This story is about political operatives influencing what social media companies allow on their platform. Totally agree... > Not every story is about Elon Musk's ego. BUT! I can't help thinking about how Elon might have a grudge against Biden and $44B might be FU money. The multiple and obvious snubs from the Biden administration against Tesla might certainly be enough to tick him off enough to do something this cr…

>BUT! I can't help thinking about how Elon might have a grudge against Biden and $44B might be FU money.

This sounds like a "you" problem. For whatever reason you have imagined that Musk hates Biden, despite his DoD giving his company billions in guaranteed contracts for space access.

Re: The Twitter Files

#639

Post by jshen »

rhaksw wrote: post #325
zzzeek wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny story, Biden was not "in the government" at that time. You're thinking of Trump. That's who was president in 2020. Does it still rub you the wrong way that Trump was "the government" telling Twitter to remove speech?

I like all of these comments because they each contain a grain of truth. Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government. "Handle" is an okay word to describe the scenario via an internet comment, yet also not a literal quote. I wish we could get back to trusted parties coming to reasonable conclusions while citing sources. It seems we're stuck in a cycle of g…

“Biden wasn't in office at the time of communications, yet was clearly a figure of influence in government.”

What in the world are you saying here? What exactly is a “figure of influence in government“, and how does that matter?

Re: The Twitter Files

#640

Post by jshen »

laborcontract wrote: post #137
anoonmoose wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time. 2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.

picking apart semantics is not sufficient to allay concerns expressed in parent

Pointing of the most critical fact, that he was not in government at the time, is not “picking apart semantics”.
Post reply on HN