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

The Twitter Files, Part Six

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 965 posts

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#801

Post by naasking »

Marazan wrote: post #786
naasking wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is free to invent whatever narrow definition of shadowbanning they want, and we are free to call out their obfuscation for the bullshit it is. Language is about effective communication. Right now we're all trying to have an important conversation about relevant social issues which requires a common understanding. You cited the common understanding, I pointed out how Twitter engaged in practices covered by tha…

You've invented your own "common understanding" They don't prevent people seeing tweets of anyone. If you follow soneone you see their tweets, if you dont follow them but gonto their profile you see their tweets. Tweets are universally publically viewable. The policies they use are not secret. Trying to start a conversation about their secret shadowbanning policy is a dead end as the policy is not shadow banning and…

And still you persist. Go read the definition you provided again. Then read my immediate reply where I pointed out they delisted people from search. That is literally a case where Twitter was "making their posts and comments no longer visible to other users" and they did so "without their knowledge".

That is shadowbanning by your own definition, and each ban was not disclosed and thus done in secret, because that's what it means to be shadowbanned.

There is a perfectly obvious interpretation of the language being used to describe this situation, and all you're doing is adding noise because people aren't using terms in the way you want while ignoring the substance. That's textbook bad faith arguing, which ironically is what you were accusing the original poster of doing.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#802

Post by etchalon »

joshuaheard wrote: post #783
etchalon wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't reflected in the evidence posted.

It's been plain to see for years.

And yet, despite unfettered access to Twitter's internal communications, evidence has yet to be posted by the journalists tasked with exposing that fact.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#803

Post by themitigating »

theonething wrote: post #351
themitigating wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another lie that is said so often that they think it's true.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34024832

Are they unwilling or unable? These stories don't show executives don't care or are encouraging it.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#804

Post by acdha »

andirk wrote: post #467
roenxi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be foolish to see this as a left v. right issue. This is an authoritarian vs. libertarian battle. This sort of activity is what the government 100% shouldn't be involved in. Having a department of What is Allowed To Be Said is one of those ideas that gets tried regularly and has a terrible track record that - inevitably - ranges between a source of mild shame in hindsight to a nightmare influence on society.…

The stupid H Biden lap top story shows that factually the government can twist a private company's arm outside of legal channels and said company will do as it is told. That is very bad. I'm not sure people realize this. Every incriminating leak showcases it more and more and yet people are generally not worried about it because they themselves have not been affected. Yet.

Can you point to exactly where the government twisted arms? What Taibi published showed the opposite.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#805

Post by deadpannini »

UncleMeat wrote: post #554
rayiner wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never been a big fan of Taibbi. But all the things you’re mentioning are characteristic of his journalistic style, which made him famous in his coverage of Wall Street back in 2008. It’s uncharitable and filtered through a fundamental distrust of moneyed corporations, but I’ve never heard it described as “unhinged.” And I’m not sure “unhinged” is an appropriate description. For example, while “internal lingo” ma…

Orwellian does not just mean changing terms or using euphemisms. It is about terms that make the expression of undesirable thoughts actually impossible. Do any of the scare-quoted terms do this? I can't see any.

Orwell, from "Politics and the English Language" [0]:

> Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.

[0] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#806

Post by mindslight »

ethanbond wrote: post #665
koolba wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it’s in the furtherance of catching or stopping an active criminal, I’d say no. Why would we be wasting government resources alerting private companies of their terms of service anyway?

I don’t think it’s a waste of government resources to be reporting people who are trying to suppress voting by e.g. giving incorrect polling dates or locations. Also don’t think it’s a waste to try to prevent ISIS recruiting material from reaching more confused and angry young men. Both are legal though!

You've hit the nail on the head - the term "political" is being used as a motte and bailey to take advantage of our intuition about bona fide political speech to cover for activities that aren't related to good faith debate. Like sure, tricking people into not voting is in some sense a "political" game, but it's not the kind of thing we'd consider "political speech" that needs protection. Same thing with assembling a flash mob to trash the capitol.

And yes, this definitional/access tension always exists when taking political stances that go against the entrenched power structure. Try to get an antiwar opinion broadcast in 2003 - music DJ's weren't even allowed to play songs whose lyrics might hint that war in general might be a bad thing. Dealing with this is just a completely new experience for those on the right that have gone from being conservative (ie generally supportive of the incumbent power structure and institutions) to revolutionary/reactionary and directly against the status quo power structure.

Social mass media, like all mass media, is now controlled by big capital (as was inevitable), with varying degrees of the individual employees adding some grassroots slant. Focusing on the slight individual flavor and ignoring the overriding power dynamic is just falling into the same old disempowering partisan trap.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#807

Post by TeeMassive »

ethanbond wrote: post #797
TeeMassive wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uh, no? I'm pretty sure every American schoolchild is educated on his or her rights under the Constitution. This is factually not true at all: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/in... https://thenewamerican.com/poll-most-americans-dont-know-bil... People talk to the police and incriminate themselves all the time. This has been a front-line of civil rights activists for decades now. What are y…

Most people not exercising their rights is entirely distinct from people not having been educated on them. The Bill of Rights is surely a required item on every single curriculum in the country. I, having paid attention in high school, am aware that I have no obligation to comply with arbitrary LEO requests, and certainly not those pertaining to the content of speech. Yes, they did talk of their own volition . As the…

The problem is not the rights of Twitter employees, it's the right of the people banned...

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#809

Post by philwelch »

Apocryphon wrote: post #534
philwelch wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statutes that try to prevent election misinformation Do such statutes even exist? I suspect the answer is no, and that the FBI is just engaging in extralegal, extrajudicial monkeyshines. > If this information was never leaked then the people effected by the FBI’s secret speech suppression may never have known and would never had a chance to contest it in court. From a certain point of view (which seems distress…

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/sca... > Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime. > Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartphones. They may provide misleading information about the time, manner, or pl…

In that case I’m with benmmurphy: they should be enforcing the law by actually prosecuting people in court (or, to be pedantic, performing arrests and investigations to support a prosecution by a US Attorney), not engaging in extrajudicial monkeyshines.

Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six

#810

Post by emodendroket »

refurb wrote: post #526
emodendroket wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What case did they rule that? It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers for this purpose so I'd be at least a little surprised to learn that it's been ruled unconstitutional but they're just flagrantly doing it anyway.

It seems pretty routine that they get in contact with newspapers Nothing says they can't contact papers.

So if they contact the WSJ and try to get them to spike a story that's fine, but if they tell Twitter "we think you should remove these tweets for violating your policies" that's not? I would love to see what the case is because I can't understand how that would make sense.
Post reply on HN