851–860 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paraphrasing for a HN comment I saw a while back. A reverse chronological feed of your friends’ posts is a platform. A recommendation engine is a publisher. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I don't agree. A recommendation engine can (and should) be completely neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I beg to differ The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. This is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence should be likewise extraordinary 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles If you're inclined…
>4 years later, however, these remain allegations only As the other user already pointed out this was has been proven. And they also have the exact unit and names of the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking. Please stop spreading disinformation about this.
"Please stop spreading disinformation about this."
Alas, the disinformation is that it has been proven.
Absolutely happy to be incorrect, but, again, it is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for such a destabilizing claim is lacking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?
> Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? Yes. Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-... There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addit…
^ This is the actual disinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One relevant example is the Steele Dossier, which Mother Jones reported on a week before the 2016 election. It was published without permission, and its more sensational claims remain unverified or have since been disproven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Mother_Jones_st...
Speaking of the Steele Dossier, here is an interesting website about the Steele Dossier. It shows you which parts have been corroborated and proven: http://annotateddossier.com/
The salacious and new claims were those that turned out to originate from a Russian agent. The Steele dossier was Russian disinformation:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, I beg to differ The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. This is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence should be likewise extraordinary 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles If you're inclined…
> 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles There was an indictment by the federal government[1][2]. That's certainly more reliable than a computer repairman finding an email on a hard drive on an abandoned computer. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian... [2] https://www.justice.gov/file/1080…
If you are indicted for a crime, the prosecutor must prove the allegations
If you are inclined to believe the allegation, your bar for proof will be quite low. Perhaps the accusation is enough.
For me, a destabilizing accusation like that requires more proof than anonymous CIA sources saying its true. I wish more Americans would put their dislike of Trump aside and demand that proof. It's not about Trump, it's about a destabilizing accusation from a government department. If they can do that about the President you don't like, they can do it about the President you do like
Again, the hard evidence, tangible and verifiable, is about the same for both
I am open to be proven wrong, believe me, but links to indictments is not proof
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not on the slightest bit strange or unusual. It’s what every President, campaigning nominee, and various administration official have been doing with the press for centuries. Indeed if anything, this President and his campaign have been at this rather less than usual, probably because of his extremely adversarial attitude toward the press. I’m really astonished at the reaction to it.
Even if it's not strange to you, are you not atleast bothered that it's so common and accepted, as you seem to suggest? You come across as being totally ok with that...an attitude I don't understand
Should campaigns be banned from conducting opposition research? Should we demand that journalist sources not have agendas? (Then who would speak to the press?) Should we require journalists to refuse assistance with their work?
I'm not a great fan of access journalism, but the reality too is that journalists will publish puff pieces or shaky misinformation pieces to curry favor for more solid news from that source in the future. That's why you see journalists even at institutions like the NY Times repeatedly publish stories from "anonymous" sources that turn out to be completely wrong but which advances some cause of the source - this has become an epidemic in the Trump era, given that a lot of political figures and career civil servants do not like the administration, and mass layoffs in the news industry have meant the replacement of veterans with younger reporters who have to curry more favor. I would prefer they not do that, but as long as you read the news with a critical eye, it's not a major problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree they blundered here. They don't want to be hijacked by another "leaks" story days before the election but now the suppression of this has become the entire story, and its convinced a lot of people the story is true and dangerous to Biden. Even if the email is true I don't see how its dangerous and if the only media carrying the story are the NY Post and Fox it doesn't hurt Biden.
That's an angle I hadn't even considered, but I'm surprised Twitter didn't. SV social media companies, of all the organizations in the world , should understand the implications of a Streisanding. If they had just left it alone, maybe attached the standard "this might be false" disclaimer, it would likely have passed as yet another partisan thing , but now they've gone and infused it with a bunch of power it didn't h…
If Twitter et al really want to be public resources they need transparency in their decision making and possibly independent oversight. If they want to just be regular businesses they need to take responsibility for the bullshit they propogate.
Straddling these two lanes hasn't been working for society and it seems like regulation or breakups are close to inevitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but this is what makes the situation so dangerous in the U.S. If no one’s mind is changed over events like these, then we’re at a point where there are essentially two citizenries which both see the other side as toxic. We’re slouching towards civil war. Most people don’t want war, but do see the other side as harmful, so we have to try hard to avoid it. Maybe we’re all looking at it wrong, maybe a civil war i…
Is Civil war possible at all in US’s military system today?
Which could, if you ask me, be a risk in case trump wins but it is rather clear that the election was fradulent (not saying it will be, but let's assume for the arguments sake it was). In which case the military would have to decide which "president" to follow, or to follow congress, or the senate, or someone else. Which could tear the military appart, let alone to speak of the national guard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the moderation decisions made today, but I'm alienated by them. A political article like this one would ordinarily get flagged off the HN front page. The subject matter of Twitter and Facebook imposing constraints on distribution is germane, but this article goes way beyond that by propagating the suspect email content.
Obviously HN readers are going to want to see the emails and decide for themselves. There's zero implication of authenticity (or inauthenticity for that matter). The only thing we care about at our end is having an accurate article (and headline) for the story. Politics isn't completely off-topic for HN—there's overlap and it depends. There's lots of previous explanation about that at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRang…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the definition of hack? If we believe NY Post's story, did a hack happen? Or are we assuming NY Post's story is false, and the materials came from an unreported hack?
I was just going by Twitter's statement in response. Hadn't looked into it beyond that. "Twitter blocked users from sharing an article that indicated Hunter Biden introduced his father Joe to a Ukranian businessman — charging that “hacked materials” were used in the story."
Very, very bad move by Twitter and Facebook. The partisan rule-bending is clear.