Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files

twitter.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: The Twitter Files

#741
post #684
post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Sorry to break it to you but there isn't any Leftists in America. Just the Center Right (Democrats) and the straight up crazy Far Right (GOP). This is plain as day from anyone outside of America and only seems to be lost on the Americans themselves.

I hate to break it to you but not everyone who speaks English on the internet is American. I'm not American and I don't live in America.

Re: The Twitter Files

#742
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.

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.

Yes, Twitter could sue, but users could also sue if they feel Twitter was colluding with and acting on behalf of the government, congresspeople, etc.

Re: The Twitter Files

#743

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Twitter Files

#744

Yeah, so? It's THEIR website. It doesn't have to be fair. Why are all these brand new people to the internet trying to tell websites they have to allow things that they don't want? As much as I hate censorship, the fact is it's THEIR website and they can do whatever they want with it. I don't have to go there. I can make my own website if I don't like a particular site. As a user of the internet since 1995, I don't f…

But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.

It really doesn't matter. As much as I don't like it, someone can still use things like rot13 to get their messages out on twitter to others. You could also link a youtube video that has material that "biden's team" doesn't want on twitter.

If I came to your house and before I got there, the president called you and told you NOT to let me in, you may or may not do it. It's up to you. It's still YOUR HOUSE and you have the ultimate choice. That's all a website is.

Re: The Twitter Files

#745
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A two party system works. I'm from a country with a 20+ party system and it's dysfunctional. In addition, you can't lump Democrats or Republicans in the USA in their respective boats. There's a hundred shades of grey within each party. But rallying behind one candidate versus a hundred in a primary makes for a better setup than anything else I've seen in other countries.

I don't really agree with you but you shouldn't be grayed out. The idea of a dysfunctional government sounds bad, but ironically that is precisely what the Founding Fathers endeavored to create. And it sounds absurd for all the reasons you're certainly aware of. Yet is the opposite desirable? In modern US politics, parties have become capable of enacting pretty substantial change on very narrow margins. This can be g…

> The one thing everybody would agree on is that the country (and world) would look radically different

Heck, I think even some other planets might be affected. Perhaps the very Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would shed a tear or two.

Re: The Twitter Files

#746
So this is nothing new but just a confirmation of what has already been known now? Twitter even admitted they f-ed up back then and tried to fix things. This looks like someone is just trying to milk this story dry at this point for some extra clicks.

Re: The Twitter Files

#747
post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read your own source? The Biden team never asked Twitter staff to “handle” anything. They forwarded tweets that [violated twitter’s ToS][1], a Twitter staff member forwarded them for review, and at that point the reviewer said they “handled these.” That’s what content moderation is supposed to do! [1]: https://twitter.com/parkebench/status/1598841731763810304

Did you? They also censored a NYT article

Are you talking about the New York Post article? I don’t see anything about a New York Times article in the thread.

Re: The Twitter Files

#748

Most concerning thing here is that this proves political parties (including the white house[0]) have a direct line to Twitter[1] to get stuff they dislike removed. One would have to assume that there was also a direct line to other social medial platforms. It's so wild to have the slimy-ness of our American political system be revealed in yet another way. So in America you cannot say negative things about political l…

In Poland they raided someone house for exposing prime minister. You can see how Aaron, Snowden or Assange ended. Society needs a way to fight back especialylly now as AI could help with controling/manipulating population

Re: The Twitter Files

#749
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of laws passed after the Enron scandal, publicly traded companies are required to retain internal communications for long periods of time. So if you're going to blame anyone for this, blame the government. Also the owners of Twitter knew that Musk would have access to these messages. That was priced into the deal. Executives and managers at publicly traded companies are very aware of information retention pol…

> Because of laws passed after the Enron scandal, publicly traded companies are required to retain internal communications for long periods of time. I've heard it phrased this way: never send an email that you wouldn't be happy to read out in court. But I'm curious, how can this policy be enforced? If I delete some of my work emails, how can a court prove that the emails ever existed and that I deleted them?

If you're subject to an investigation they'll put retention policies on them to stop that. If you're not, sure you can delete them and wait for them to disappear out of the backup windows, but then you'll need everyone who got that email to do the same.

As I was told in my first day of training at a large investment bank, "If you have something sensitive to discuss, pick up the phone".

Post reply on HN