71–80 of 1001 posts
Maybe getting rid of professional journalism, and crowd sourcing the news via secret algorithms, isn't such a great idea after all...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?
The posts should be allowed particularly if they're false. If people are allowed to say true things, then that's not particularly valuable information. However, the content's of someone's lies usually says more than the truth (which can often be obtained elsewhere).
Ignore the NYPost for the moment. A US government website put the details on their website. Twitter is now blocking the US government webpage hosting the details. They are blocking actual politicians linking these details. https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/13167418079595724... Worse yet, they have highlighted the exact opposite story. They are featuring washington post who are calling it false. https://twitt…
I have been pretty vocal about being against censorship from social media companies. But with the stakes being as high as they are this close to an election (not just this particular election, but any election in general), I see no problem with social media companies deciding they will not be a party to the spread of misinformation intended to sway the election. These companies are not neutral communication platforms…
The bigger problem is that journalists/newspapers are no longer the arbiters of truth, and instead the distributors are.
I just don’t get it, what is Twitter so afraid of? It’s already a cesspool of flame wars and misinformation, I’m growing deeply concerned about their need to interject themselves into news stories like this.
I wonder if FB and Twitter are in contact with some of the national intelligence agencies. US intelligence officials talking to NYT suggest that this "leak" is a forgery by the GRU. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if it is false, then they are performing the stated goal of stopping the spread of “fake news”, which need not discriminate on whether the entity pushing it is associated with a government or not. Whether or not I want Twitter to be an arbiter of truth, some very basic research does seem to make it seem this story is a bit on the order of a conspiracy theory.
Just out of curiosity, what is your political persuasion? Do you tend to lean more democrat or republican? >which need not discriminate on whether the entity pushing it is associated with a government or not. I was ignoring the NYPost, to judge action taken by Twitter. Twitter should never ever censor a government website regardless for what it says. >Whether or not I want Twitter to be an arbiter of truth, some very…
If they get it wrong, fine. We can use other platforms if we don't like the decisions one makes. But I'm tired of the idea that they should NEVER be able to even try to recognize the difference between truth and lies.
The story reeks from top to bottom. The owner of the repair shop that allegedly received the laptop from Biden is a super far right conspiracy theorist. To the point where he literally believes that the Clintons are out to kill him for the information he has [1]. The whole story is that this is Hunter Biden's laptop, but in reality some random dude dropped it off and the owner said that "he had a medical condition th…
So? Other fake stories are certainly not censored in this manner. To demand the White House press secretary delete a tweet? To censor the U.S. House Judiciary Committee? I mean all parties hold their hot stories to close to the election for the greatest impact, but Twitter is certainly not even trying to appear partisan at this moment. It's quite clear this is not "hacked information", and if it wore, then it would b…
Frankly, they should do this much more when officials lie (which the current administration has demonstrably done ad infinitum for four years). There's no reason at all for them to help officials lie about important matters.
As a private platform, it's certainly a matter of whether or not they are helping you do something rather than whether or not they are preventing you from doing something. If we want a reliable avenue for public communication, Silicon Valley ain't gonna give it to us, and they shouldn't.
It would be another thing to prevent people from stating that someone else had said something (given that the statement did actually happen). Sometimes, Twitter does block all posts that even mention a topic. This is definitely a bad approach, and I think they do tend to rectify it when this happens, but they still screw it up pretty often.
Ignore the NYPost for the moment. A US government website put the details on their website. Twitter is now blocking the US government webpage hosting the details. They are blocking actual politicians linking these details. https://twitter.com/CongressmanHice/status/13167418079595724... Worse yet, they have highlighted the exact opposite story. They are featuring washington post who are calling it false. https://twitt…
I have been pretty vocal about being against censorship from social media companies. But with the stakes being as high as they are this close to an election (not just this particular election, but any election in general), I see no problem with social media companies deciding they will not be a party to the spread of misinformation intended to sway the election. These companies are not neutral communication platforms…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?
Is the story demonstrably false? I don't know if that is the case. It's certainly a smear story. In the past they've fact-checked Tweets from the President and his party but, I've not yet seen them straight up delete them and lock their accounts until now.
What if I accuse someone of something, and then post that I accused them. The accusation maybe bogus but the post is technically not false.
Keep aside the accuracy of the NYPost story for a moment. With this move, Facebook and Twitter have effectively backed one political side over the other. Even if in the nitty-gritty they might not have, this is the perception that is sent out and is the perception that will be played to the hilt by the Trump camp. And timing of this is damning as well, with distrust of big tech and social media rising even before thi…
They’ve certainly changed my vote. Wow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter if the story reeks or not. This is about censorship and even application of "community standards." Twitter has never once censored any of smears or leaks against the Trump campaign. Also, your criteria for this story to reek shows your bias. It's not like Joe Biden himself bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired with the threat of holding back a billion dollars. It's on video, just Google…
> Twitter has never once censored any of smears or leaks against the Trump campaign. Of course not. It's selective interference. They're just getting more brazen about it as we get closer to election day. Also telling is that they have a pinned story at the top of the empty search page with the link titled, " Joe Biden did not push out a Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his son, The Washington Post reports " ED…