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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by 75dvtwin »

inglor_cz wrote: post #172

This is the Streisand effect in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Here in Czechia we mostly concentrate on our outrageous Covid numbers of late, but this story about Twitter pulling down a NY Post article made it through into our local news. If it stayed up, no one would have cared enough to write about it.

Well, I think you underestimate the gravity of this. A thoroughly corrupt money laundering Biden family machine (which also involves children of other previously high profile politicians) -- may become the presidential family of US.

And the social networks in the country, have chosen to do what they have always done with anti-left news -- they censored them.

My view, make the execs accountable now.

They have to be ones explaining why they apply one set of rules to one side of political opinion, and then another set of rules to the other side. [2]

If they are biased, than they are not a neutral platform.

A person who establishes a Charity non-profit, to hide taxes, launder money -- will be held accountable in a just system.

So should be Twitter, Facebook, and others for hiding behind 'neutral platform and section 230'.

Bring them to justice is the only solution. And do it now, before they buy/lobby their way out...

[1] See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24797602

[2] https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/if-unreliable-is-the-issue-why...

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

#842

Post by jMyles »

croes wrote: post #788
crazygringo wrote: post #379

> However, it is highly unusual for an article published by one of the mainstream popular newspapers to be treated in this way. That's a bit of a stretch. The NY Post is a tabloid [1]. Tabloids are technically newspapers, but they aim primarily to sensationalize [2]. Tabloids are nothing like the NY Times or Washington Post, which attempt to present objective, unbiased news. (Now you may argue that they fail at that…

Who decides if a newspaper is a newspaper or just a tabloid?

You mean a broadsheet vs a tabloid?

Some newspapers are in a broadsheet format, others in a tabloid format (and some, in other less common formats).

The tabloid format is often used to shock.

Is any of this in dispute?

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

#843

Post by akvadrako »

realmod wrote: post #327
CivBase wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading through these HN comments, it is amazing to me how many people have already concluded the NY Post story is either obviously true or false. But I agree with the gist of your point. Social media platforms should stop pretending to be unbiased disinformation watchmen. It's their platform and they don't have to justify squat. If people want free speech, they can go somewhere else. On that note, I really do think…

The contradictory statements by the so-called shop owner, who provided the emails, and the past behavior of Guiliani all points towards it very likely being false. And them holding this information until 3 weeks before the election points, after having it for over a year, further points it to being false informations. And the nail in the coffin is the simple fact that they decided to release a PDF-image of the emails…

On the other hand that Biden doesn’t deny the meeting or that the laptop is real strongly points to it being true.

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

#844

Post by derptron »

brandmeyer wrote: post #773
velox_io wrote: post #693

What I find most shocking about this, was that they banned the Press Secretary to the White House's Twitter account - That's the part I cannot get my head around.

You can't get your head around which part? The idea that the White House Press Secretary would tweet ban-worthy remarks? Or the part where Twitter banned the account?

The "ban-worthy" remark was linking the article.

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

#845

Post by malwrar »

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

The root of the issue here is that Twitter is the one deciding this in the first place. What appears on their platform influences large numbers of people. I know it, you know it, and know it too--influencing people to e.g. buy stuff is how they make money after all. It's not hard to understand why a company with such influence making such large impacts without being accountable to the public scares people, particularly those who evidently think differently than those who run these companies.

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

#846

Post by samatman »

djsumdog wrote: post #809
vehemenz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is we? Fox News has been at 6.5 since Bush Jr.

And now we're at the flip side where the Clinton News Network, The Washington Compost and MSNBSee are all blatantly partition and have gone so far off the rails, they have news anchors who are saying that a protest is peaceful, while buildings and car dealerships are literally burning behind them .. on multiple occasions.

Please keep the Slashdot-era cutesy nicknames off HN.

They undermine your argument, degrade the discourse, and have no place here.

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

#847

Post by scarmig »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #830
boomboomsubban wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not hacking to decrypt your own data. The argument is, and the precedent set by law supports, that failure to pay for and retrieve the device after a set period of time transfers ownership. It's basically the legal grounds of "finders keepers"

People keep asserting that ownership of the data passed to the shop owner, but it's not at all clear that's the case.

1) Assuming Biden did bring and abandon the laptop, what do state laws generally say about data ownership? What does Delaware law say about it?

2) We can't assume it was Biden who brought the laptop. Suppose it was stolen: naively, I'd guess ownership can't pass to the store owner, because the person who brought it didn't own it in the first place. But who knows: IANAL. What if the laptop was legitimately owned by someone not Biden, but they stole Biden's data and moved it to the laptop before abandoning it?

3) Again naively, it appears that the shop owner definitely and Giuliani potentially distributed intimate videos of Hunter Biden without his consent. That would seem to run afoul of revenge porn laws, which are on the books in both Delaware (as of 2014) and New York (as of July 2019).

I don't know if the blanket assertions you're making are accurate or useful. At the very least, they need to be fleshed out, and there's way too little information available right now to say conclusively that the owner of the shop broke no laws.

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

#848

Post by joejoeshabadoo5 »

wesleywt wrote: post #3
uncoder0 wrote: post #2

To add to this Trump's official campaign Twitter had it's account locked this morning and a video Trump uploaded was promptly deleted. This is new information from today. The thread yesterday was about the initial wave of censorship. I posted about the new actions this morning but it got flagged as a dupe of yesterday's discussion. It was not a duplicate, Twitter has taken new action and decided to go further this mo…

Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?

You sound like a huge faggot.

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

#849

Post by bmarquez »

barbacoa wrote: post #840
boomboomsubban wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of someone's non-public contact information being shared without a response? Their guidelines permit discussion and linking to press stories of hacks provided they don't include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.

Saying a public person's email address is private information that could lead to physical harm is quite a stretch. If the NYP had redacted the email addresses they would have named a different excuse.

I've seen commenters on HN that claim that the emails are suspect because they don't include DKIM signatures. Redacting the email would make it even more suspicious in their eyes.

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

#850

Post by giardini »

augustt wrote: post #557
giardini wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ffggvv says >"so many stories about trump are later proven to be fake or unsubstantiated such as the russian bounties, that he owes money to russia, the steele dossier etc... and his tax returns were also stolen or hacked" By now you should understand the Democratic Party's news cycle: a) Make up a message (something, anything bad) and present it to the press as a Presidential abomination, b) Get Democratically-favor…

Can you add some more steps to the flow chart? wondering how insane we can sound here.

I think I captured the essential steps of the process. Yes, parts of it (in particular, mob/group behavior) I would characterise as manifestations of insanity, but most of the steps are very rationally planned and executed. You could add Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" if you want more detail on the "how it is done" part:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals#The_Rules

Post reply on HN