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

The Twitter Files

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: The Twitter Files

#841

Post by yucky »

avemg wrote: post #131
Dig1t wrote: 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.

It should please you to hear that the Biden team was not the government at the time.

Biden was Vice President at the time the Hunter Biden emails selling access to him were sent, which is exactly what the story was about. "10% for the Big Guy" while he was VP should definitely be a story when that same former VP was then running for President. Especially now that he has delivered on that access, by funneling billions to those same Ukrainian powerbrokers in the form of military aid and infrastructure spending.

Re: The Twitter Files

#842

Post by duckqlz »

This entire series of posts are a well crafted attempt to inflame the reader and divide the comments section. As this is a personal opinion of a very complex issue I think hn is a bad place for this type of post (see ensuing comments). We can all do our part to try and remain academic when responding to other comments we don't agree with.

Re: The Twitter Files

#843

Post by Yuyudo_Comiketo »

This is how you promote a technocrat to be later put in the role of the head of one world government:

You censor, mute, cancel all dissent for years. You turn homes to prisons and enforce inhumane conditions for people to just be able to "get back to normalcy". You turn voluntary to compulsory. You deprive people of individuality by defacing them with masks. You school their obedience with barefaced surveillance. You edit the hell out of living language with bullshit like replacing "he/she" with "they", infesting it with newspeak, you make up 100500 new gender identifications that all camouflage the same psychic disorder, you deluge all the key platforms with hordes of shills, trendsetters and discourse steersmen. You start senseless wars with the only goal of reducing as many human beings to dust as possible. You implant terms like "tin-foil hat" and "conspiracy theorist" as a prefabricated gag, you discredit by associating all independent thinking with lunacies like Flat Earth. All in all, you do your best to make this society a hell to live in for everyone having the guts to tell a spade a spade, or at least to recognize the underlying roots of one's cognitive dissonance. You boil it until it all but blows up.

Then you start moving the queen, that is, the so-called "self-made man" who invented PayPal (not), personally developed the blueprints of Falcons and Teslas (not) and has now been saving the world (not) from the oppression of all things mentioned above by jail-breaking Twitter from the tentacles of censorship, thus winning himself an army of supporters, especially among young, idealistic and geeky. Then you probably make him a key figure in exposing the medical fascism of Corona Era and stopping all the bloodshed stirred up by the "incompetent national governments" of the world.

Then, one day, "ladies and gentlemen (sic!), meet the first President of the World!"

Screenshot this comment when it's almost faded to ivory, with all the cavils replied, to prove that the gist of it wasn't that obvious for everyone back in the day - or maybe that I was wrong, hopefully.

Re: The Twitter Files

#844

Post by strathmeyer »

Dem_Boys wrote: post #197
purple_ferret wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this surprising? People get things resolved via Hacker News when people comment on CEO account comments (Stripe comes to mind). Nearly every company probably has direct lines of access for resolutions for VIPs, politicians not excluded.

Not surprising but sad. Politicians should be excluded from what you're talking about IMO. They're elected to serve the people and stand for our American beliefs including the freedom of speech. A political party (the DNC in this case) getting tweets removed probably isn't a 1st amendment violation. But it's really shady and anyone from government (the white house in this case) getting tweets removed is likely violat…

Sure thing account name Dem Boys created just after the January 6 insurrection. This is trolling stop upvoting it.

Re: The Twitter Files

#845

Post by hk__2 »

voldacar wrote: post #467
stefan_ wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it's even better than that. Taibbi shows you emails of some DNC person reporting tweets, but neglects to show you the actual tweets in question: Chinese Spam Bots and revenge porn. Truly the smoking gun. The irony is the misdirection worked, people in this thread are frothing at their mouths unable to tell who even was in government in 2020.

Nah you are definitely trying to minimize this. At this point it is clear that you have political parties (let's be honest, it's really just one political party, coincidentally the one that receives >99% of twitter's political donations) colluding in secret with high level people in twitter (whose political affiliations, curiously enough, are quite different from a random population sample) to censor a news story tha…

> At this point it is clear that

There’s nothing in that thread that shows this. We only see a moderation team discussing about a report from someone in the Biden team about some dick picks posted on Twitter.

Re: The Twitter Files

#846

Post by yucky »

Manjuuu wrote: post #819
imran0 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone claiming to exist in this middle space is in practice a republican, just without the conviction that's typical to that party's base. So it's basically, "If you're not with us, you're against us?"

Maybe you missed this part in the parent message: "I would have identified as a Democrat on pretty much every issue, but this authoritarian suppression of speech and ideas has just pushed me away from that side completely." It's so absurd as a statement, no one does a 180 "because free speech". Both parties are so clearly distinct that if you claim to be something in the middle you'd better explain what you mean. But…

   > But I'm not an american, I could be wrong
Yes, this is the case here. There are a number of issues that matter enough to make people switch parties, particularly the more moderate people in each party. In fact you can see entire swathes of voter blocks having changed parties over the last 20 years as party platforms have changed focus on some core issues.

They won't necessarily switch from D -> R or R -> D. They will often switch to a 3rd party or Independent. Over time they may eventually find their way into supporting the opposite major party. Occasionally they will switch directly from one major party to the other. Just depends on the issues and where people are at in their lives.

Re: The Twitter Files

#847

Post by tootie »

zaroth wrote: post #555
anoonmoose wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point isn’t that Twitter felt compelled. Isn’t the point that Twitter happily complied, and even made up reasons to censor the stuff they thought was the most damaging “in order to prevent another 2016”.

I mean, so what? They can do what they want. We already knew what they did. The leaked communication conforms pretty well to their public explanation. You just don't like it. Go try Truth Social then.

Re: The Twitter Files

#848

Post by hk__2 »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #39
tjstebbing wrote: post #6

This is certainly the kind of transparency twitter needs to regain it's appearance of neutrality. It's some well-played PR for the platform at least.

Blocking DMs from sharing URLs to a mainstream news story is CCP-level censorship. I'd expect to read about this happening on WeChat, not here. Yet here we are.

> Blocking DMs from sharing URLs to a mainstream news story is CCP-level censorship. I'd expect to read about this happening on WeChat, not here. Yet here we are.

Twitter admitted it was a wrong decision and reverted it. So it’s more "here we were" than "here we are".

Re: The Twitter Files

#849

Post by tootie »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #502
andreyk wrote: post #108

It does not seem like this really exposed any new information - Twitter publicly justified its actions as being about its hacked data policy back when this all happened ( https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-mat... ). All this shows is some internal disagreement as to whether that was the right call. By the way, Facebook also suppressed the news story citing its misinformation policy ( https://www…

It shows collusion with politicians to coordinate censorship.

It shows that politicians asked. Which should be pretty obvious. Anyone can ask. Speaking of collusion, why is this getting so much hype right now coming on that heels of the new GOP House majority announcing that they're going to make it a focus of next term? That seems extremely well timed to me. And the underlying story behind the whole thing is still fishy and not interesting.

Re: The Twitter Files

#850

Post by tootie »

andrew_ wrote: post #114
andreyk wrote: post #108

It does not seem like this really exposed any new information - Twitter publicly justified its actions as being about its hacked data policy back when this all happened ( https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-mat... ). All this shows is some internal disagreement as to whether that was the right call. By the way, Facebook also suppressed the news story citing its misinformation policy ( https://www…

T̵w̵i̵t̵t̵e̵r̵ ̵p̵u̵b̵l̵i̵c̵l̵y̵ ̵j̵u̵s̵t̵i̵f̵i̵e̵d̵ Twitter publicly attempted to justify I think at this point we can agree that a public agreement on whether or not they were actually justified is impossible to obtain. Viewing the discussions around their internal justifications is interesting at the very least.

Also irrelevant. They don't need anyone's approval to do anything. If they satisfied their shareholders they upheld their duty.
Post reply on HN