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

651–660 of 763 posts

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

#651

Post by rhizome »

hiram112 wrote: post #399
rhizome wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? It's "funny" how those who want to propagate banned material always cast themselves as some repressed group subject to the tyranny of government power. It can still be posted on Gab or Parler, right?

> Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? That's a perfectly fine stance, and it has worked well for traditional publishers like the NY Times and Washington Post for decades. They control all their content, and publish exactly the narrative they want. OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them. See for…

Neither the NYT nor WaPo publish UGC, which is a nuance (the nuance, perhaps) that necessitates a middle ground and a recognition that the dish in play is not cake at all.

I didn't like 230 at the time, and frankly we wouldn't be having so many (IF ANY) Facebook headaches over the past 10 years if it had never been born. FB et al didn't want to choose between editorial and common carrier status and the government acceeded to that whine. 230 is what we got, and now we find that 230-protected companies want to exercise editorial control. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but reversing to the common carrier distinction ain't gonna be it.

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

#652

Post by rbanffy »

unishark wrote: post #645
rbanffy wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. > But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter. Twitter is not a news…

> They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it. And what causes it?? What if censorship itself causes hate speech?

> What if censorship itself causes hate speech?

Hate speech existed before Twitter and will likely persist after it. Other social networks that allegedly do not practice content moderation also have identifiable hate speech content in them.

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

#653

Post by shureluck »

koolba wrote: post #346
mantap wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).

> Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes. > How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information. The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is n…

Incredibly well put. I do truly wish that education taught debate these days.

One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position.

I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.

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

#654

Post by shureluck »

mikeyouse wrote: post #139
OliverGilan wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they delete the tweet if they're locked out of the account?

There's a separate flow where they've sent the NYPost an email detailing why their account has been suspended with a link to the Tweet in question and a link saying "Delete this Tweet". As soon as they delete it, their account will be reinstated. They've chosen not to delete for either "moral" reasons or "moral outrage" reasons, but the ball is in their court.

I love the fact New York Post are leaving their account locked.

It is a better advertisement for the story, and worse for Twitter.

The irony of a giant company like Twitter falling for the Streisand effect is rich.

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

#655

Post by rbanffy »

dionian wrote: post #630
rbanffy wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Section 230 doesn't require neutrality.

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

#656

Post by shureluck »

root_axis wrote: post #236

So just visit nypost.com, don't rely on twitter for your news.

Exactly.

Although to be fair, I dont think Twitter has figured out that it is now becoming “cool” and free advertising to be blocked by them.

It is turning into a form of rebellion and “fighting against the man”. It is a badge of honor for a large segment of society right now.

Basically, being banned by Twitter is becoming free advertising.

I mean, look a this post by OP.

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

#657

Post by rbanffy »

humaniania wrote: post #468
CptFribble wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, almost everything on ZH is predicting catastrophe - ZH is rife with prepper-flavored "this is the big one" reports on things like FEMA operations, rumors of potential false flag attacks, and of course various financial instrument movements. 99% of what ZH says is the end of all things fades into nothingness. ZH is the canonical example of a correct-twice-daily broken clock.

Exactly this! Thank you. ZeroHedge almost seems to be designed to induce anxiety and spread disinformation.

If it was not designed that way, there's certainly an incentive for that behavior to evolve.

The question is if we want to prevent all news sources from evolving into that.

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

#658

Post by chordalkeyboard »

munk-a wrote: post #529
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there is also a danger of uninformed voters bringing about authoritarianism?

Absolutely yea - especially since we're sorta leaning that way in America right now. But I think that that risk is coming out of undemocratic qualities of our government rather than the democratic ones. I really really want to dump FPTP voting since I think it inevitably leads to two party systems and that two-party partisan us vs. them politics is what lets authoritarianism grow.

Thanks for the reply. My perspective is that democracy is a type of authoritarianism, or at least closely related because the elections are decision-forcing processes that result in the losing side not getting what they want. How would you reconcile this?

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

#659

Post by LifeIsThermal »

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…

Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and wild west Twitter. Then all sensitive people can log into a pink bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored reality. Most people should realize that very few would choose the pink bubble. The line should be drawn at illegal content in the wild west Twitter.

You should trust other people to have the same ability as yourself to evaluate information.

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

#660

Post by olliej »

dionian wrote: post #627
Spooky23 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just checked, and yes Twitter can, just like you can’t force any business you want to stock copies of the nypost.

Also nypost.com is a thing.

The reality is that plenty of sites use Twitter as an essentially free billboard ad. Then get upset when they’re told they can’t put whatever they want on a billboard on private property, especially one that they have no contract to use, nor pay rent for.

Post reply on HN