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

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#751

Post by fareesh »

naiveprogrammer wrote: post #87
vinhboy wrote: post #13

In the first post about this, people were like, how come they didn't do this to the Democrats in 2016.. Uhhh because they were not taking ANY aggressive actions in 2016 against anyone, that's why we are here. They are trying to correct a wrong. I applaud them for trying. Also it's unfair to say they are doing this for political favoritism. Democratic politicians are the loudest ones calling for their breakup, ie. Ber…

Instead of blaming fake news and misinformation for the 2016 elections outcome, maybe the Democrats should look themselves in the mirror. I have yet to see a clear decisive causation link between the Russian interference (e.g. bot farms) and the outcome of the election. Of course there was interference, nobody denies it. But show me that these trolls swayed the election. There is none.

Is there a word for the typical arguments that you see where there are 100 false premises and to even make your case you have to dismantle each one?

The Russia conspiracy theory is laden with these. So many conversations are very tedious because of the number of falsehoods you have to break down before you make any progress. Many folks seem to accept it as a given that troll farms were successful. The posts themselves are laughable.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#752

Post by bananabreakfast »

eitland wrote: post #735
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

> Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses I think the idea is that if this is the rule, a lot of Republicans think it has already been broken a number of times against them.

Ha, against "them". All republicans. As a monolith. As if they are a sports team.

This sums up the central problem in modern politics as a whole right here.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#754

Post by notherthrowaway »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #728
notherthrowaway wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the press secretary’s Twitter account get special treatment?

Yes.

I figured the rules applied to everyone when they sign the TOS.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#755

Post by RonanTheGrey »

mattigames wrote: post #491
rayiner wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

That's not how it works in reality, in reality a lot of gullible people who before internet would have spend their whole lives without hearing the "flat earth theory" now have access to internet and are quickly influenced by a lot of stupid theories because they are pretty bad at distinguishing bad ones from good ones; although just to be clear that is more a failure of the education system than anything else (e.g Ja…

> are quickly influenced by a lot of stupid theories because they are pretty bad at distinguishing bad ones from good ones;

Actually this is an interesting problem to think about; what, then, did these people believe before they could get access to crazier ideas?

I think you'll find the answer was still, "what they were told to believe". The answer hasn't changed from then to now, we're simply far more aware of being upset at the answer. In a way the problem that was always there has been revealed and some people don't like the loss of control over these people's opinions.

Me personally I'm an advocate of "let go, stop controlling, see how things turn out" and then fix the real problems that appear, rather than creating worse problems by squeezing the play doh too tightly. It has the upside of being morally defensible rather than having the air of "I destroyed your life for your own good."

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#756

Post by Fishysoup »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #752
eitland wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses I think the idea is that if this is the rule, a lot of Republicans think it has already been broken a number of times against them.

Ha, against "them". All republicans. As a monolith. As if they are a sports team. This sums up the central problem in modern politics as a whole right here.

It does tend to be the case in the last years. Being affiliated with the party of Trump and McConnell is a choice, and means condoning their behavior to a certain extent. You can be a conservative and not a Republican, but if you call yourself a Republican you're effectively endorsing corruption and hatred.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#757

Post by nobody9999 »

eloisius wrote: post #713
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

Okay so maybe we need to start regulating AI, or machine-curated content, or recommendation systems, but not stamping out one of the cornerstones of western intellectual culture. Free speech is certainly more important than YouTube’s engagement metrics.

>Free speech is certainly more important than YouTube’s engagement metrics.

More important to you. Wanna guess what's more important to YouTube?

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#758

Post by boomboomsubban »

CivBase wrote: post #200
sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

How does this constitute hacking? The repair shop almost certainly retains ownership of unclaimed deviced after some period of time. The shop owns the laptop. The data is theirs to do with as they please and they chose to publish it (at least, that's the story). No hacking necessary.

Wouldn't it classify as hacking if the data had any encryption? Bypassing encryption to reach copyrighted media would be a DMCA violation if nothing else.

No clue if any encryption was used though, and either way the doxxing restriction could stop it.

Post reply on HN