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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by dahfizz »

montagg wrote: post #621
nemo44x wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is considered violence by some people. It has been this way since the late 80's but it was confined to certain subcultures that weren't taken too seriously. But they have taken over certain institutions, like the university (and increasingly big-tech), and own that platform and teach this as esteemed fact rather than an opinion. And it's dangerous because when you equate speech with violence then how far are w…

There is absolutely speech that is violence, and it is typically not protected by free speech. Harassment, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, calling for literal violence against others, these are allowed to be regulated (in the US) and understood broadly to be dangerous.

Where does this idea come from that unprotected speech == violence? Perjury is not protected speech, do you think that is violent?

Violence is fundamentally a physical thing. Incitements to violence and threats of violence are bad, but they are not the same thing as violence.

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

#762

Post by refurb »

rayiner wrote: post #187
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…

If this is hacked emails, doesn’t that prove the article is credible?

This is the key point. Twitter blocked the NYPost article before doing any sort of investigation.

Jack is just trying to justify it after the fact.

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

#763

Post by revscat »

Fishysoup wrote: post #756
bananabreakfast wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The downvotes are baffling if unsurprising.

The Republican Party is based on racism and hatred, and opposes democracy. For some reason this rather obvious fact is a controversial statement to make here. It’s like HN is stuck in 1990’s-era equivocation or something.

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

#764

Post by grumple »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

What internet were you a part of? We banned trolls, nazis, and conspiracy theorists all the time on early Internet forums and irc channels. It’s only in recent years that this behavior has been tolerated on large platforms. The fact is that newer platforms just serve to promote bad behavior rather than expose it.

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

#765

Post by innocentoldguy »

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…

Hunter's laptop wasn't hacked. After abandoning it, the laptop and all its contents became the property of the store owner. This is similar to a storage unit. If you don't pay, the owner is legally justified in taking possession of all your stuff and is not guilty of breaking and entering or theft.

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

#766

Post by delfinom »

frankzen wrote: post #760

They're a publisher that edits content, plain and simple. Take away the platform status and let them play by the same rules as other publishers.

You realize this helps them right? The tech companies now become engrained, they'll enact chinese style mass deletions of content, and nobody will be able to enter the market without a similar massive investment in heavy handed moderation.

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

#767

Post by RonanTheGrey »

mikenew wrote: post #606
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…

> People were also stopped from sending the article in a private direct message In this instance, the solution has already reached beyond the realm of "don't allow certain things to be amplified". You literally cannot share this information even in a private 1-on-1 chat. > we go back to uncurated things Yeah. The more I reflect on things the more I think social networks are just a thing that shouldn't exist. Although…

> The more I reflect on things the more I think social networks are just a thing that shouldn't exist.

I keep ending up there too honestly.

We'll always build something "like" socializing online. Humans don't stop "humaning" if you get my meaning.

We really do need to figure it out though... either mostly agree it's a bad idea, or figure out how to do it without it being as destructive as it is.

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

#768

Post by ruined »

partiallypro wrote: post #406
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…

Twitter's "rules" would have stopped huge stories like The Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, Watergate, etc from being posted on their platform. The statement read like it was typed up by an intern that didn't communicate with the legal team or any logical person. (edited for clarification)

They've already used this same policy to stop Blueleaks.

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

#769

Post by delfinom »

codecrusade wrote: post #315
rtx wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why this election is so important. It will chart our paths for next 100 years.

China invasion of US. Sad.

It literally won't happen due to MAD. Or rather, the few thousand nukes that'll glass them.

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

#770

Post by refurb »

swalsh wrote: post #312
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

When guns were flint locks, the amount of damage one person could do was pretty limited. When machine guns became generally available (and i'm aware $200 is not "generally available" in 1920). That changed. These weapons were introduced to "force multiply" an individual. Before the internet, the amount of damange a single guy with free speech could do was pretty limited. But with the internet, we're all force-multipl…

When the printing press came out it force multiplied. Same with amplified sound.
Post reply on HN