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

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

Post by serial_dev »

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…

> 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.

While I'm not arguing whether the allegations are true or not, I don't think timing your most valuable opposition research findings makes things automatically false.

And in my opinion, these huge platforms that are basically monopolies should not be censoring things based on whether they think something is true or false. It's tempting to believe that every issue is either clearly true or clearly false, in most fields that is not the case and I don't want @jack deciding what's "safe" for me to see.

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

#882

Post by 75dvtwin »

cirgue wrote: post #85

Hot take: they should do more of this, not less. As a medium it’s fundamentally distortionary, what is popular on Twitter is as much a function of the peculiarities of its ranking algorithm as it is of the material significance of the information. The less people trust twitter popularity as an indication of importance, the better off society is, and the more diverse the online media ecosystem can be.

I think the issue with social networks like Twitter and other, claiming legal benefits of 'platforms' while acting as publishers and crowdsourced-publishers.

It is like having a for-profit business that claims tax umbrella of a charitable organization.

All we have to do is simply recongize, that these social networks are publishers of political content.

So they can choose to continue editorialization by crowdourcing, but comittees, by AI, by whatever they want.

And they can live happily but as publishers.

The ISPs (for which section 230 really was meant) -- can continue to be impartial and claim the protection benefits of that section.

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

#883

Post by ImaCake »

officehero wrote: post #818
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…

Interesting point of view. So as long as a paper is "non-tabloid" it should be more trusted. A Chinese or Russian state owned non-tabloid is then more trustworthy than NYP? Propaganda is everywhere and the definition of what and when something is sensationalist is fuzzy.

What is the point of your comment? The author is stating that the mainstream view has been that tabloid papers sensationalise while broadsheets profess to not doing so. This is not their opinion, it is context for their argument that blocking a link to a tabloid would not be unusual for twitter considering the other links they have blocked in the past.

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

#884

Post by 75dvtwin »

vharuck wrote: post #121
Ashanmaril wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woke people think they're Galileo but they're really the church The book burning going on lately is insane

Everyone thinks they're Galileo. Who would ever stay with the side they think is wrong and cruel? History (i.e. future opinions) will assign the labels.

everyone at twitter or FB content moderation roles, or execs -- think they are ethics luminaries and moral compases of the 21st century. Sort of the Supreme Court of ethics and moral judgment.

Really the problem is not with liars, it is with liars that wield lots of influence, power -- and try to actively and systemically circumvent existing law.

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

#885

Post by fareesh »

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?

If the Press Secretary makes ban-worthy remarks, the people have a right to know what those remarks are.

This is basically secrecy, not ban-worthy remarks. She said something that the public is not allowed to know.

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

#886

Post by 75dvtwin »

shitgoose wrote: post #776

Twitter and FB did a HUGE favor to Republicans and personally to Trump. Hadn't they blocked the story, would we see 1159 comments here? Instead of "oh, not that again!.." story, that would have died two days later, we have fireworks that will last until election and will have significant impact. Many of who were mildly leaning towards Biden will reconsider.

I hope this incident of systemic bias by Twitter and others, will not just end in 'amplification' of the story.

I hope the result of this outrage, is that the companies that claim to be 'plaforms', but instead are systemically and agressively -- are 'publishers' when it comes to political content, will face legal system.

Just like a for-profit business would face, when they claim 'non-profit charity' taxation rules.

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

#887

Post by remarkEon »

In case anyone doesn't want to read through all the pages, here are the prevailing themes of this discussion as I see them.

- the facts of the case are irrelevant, what's important now is how the tech companies reacted

- the facts of the case are extremely relevant, because that would obviously inform how Twitter/Facebook deal with the content on their website

- Twitter's response was severely mismanaged (or not, some think it was wise) because it will invite further accusations that they "censor" conservative voices

- The usual, and completely unsettled, debate about publisher vs platform for social media companies

- "How did we get here? When I was young, the internet was a free for all and it was cool. Can we go back to that?"

- Some interesting discussions about if democracy can survive in the social media age

- At times, some philosophical discussions about what is a "fact"

- An interesting discussion about what it means to have "anonymous" sources

- A great discussion about if the "slippery slope" actually is a logical fallacy

There's a few more.

To be quite frank, HN really is a good community. These are all worthy things to talk about! Within the horrorshow that is 2020, it's kind of cool that there's a place where a (mostly) civil discussion can be had about these extremely complex topics.

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

#888

Post by fareesh »

taxicab wrote: post #23

The story reeks from top to bottom. The owner of the repair shop that allegedly received the laptop from Biden is a super far right conspiracy theorist. To the point where he literally believes that the Clintons are out to kill him for the information he has [1]. The whole story is that this is Hunter Biden's laptop, but in reality some random dude dropped it off and the owner said that "he had a medical condition th…

Giuliani says they have a receipt with Hunter's signature on it

Hunter's lawyer has allegedly emailed the store asking for the laptop back

If those two things can be corroborated and they aren't forgeries, it should dispel all speculation about who dropped it off and who it belonged to.

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

#889

Post by seppin »

remarkEon wrote: post #861
rch wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not following the details of the story, but has anyone suggested that Hunter dropped off the laptop himself? Stealing a laptop and causing a bit of damage to initiate a costly repair, then leaving it with a shop under an assumed name seems like a solid Mitnick-level hack to me.

I think the most likely scenario is that he went on a bender (he has well known substance abuse problems) and locked himself out, dropped it off to get it fixed, and forgot about it. This seems much more plausible than some of the other extremely complex theories which assume that, ahem, Rudy Gulianni (of all people) was able to plan a years long scam to procure this particular computer.

Or, none of the leaked data came from the "computer" in question. Hunter's iCloud backup was hacked, Burisma's internal emails were breached by the GRU last year. Combine those two sources, mix real correspondences with some forgeries, and blame it all on a single laptop a MAGA supporter happened upon in rural Delaware.

Makes perfect sense, if you want it to.

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

#890

Post by wang_li »

magicalist wrote: post #456
hintymad wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right. And hacked in what way? Didn't the repair shop owner take ownership of the computer after repeatedly asking for payment but not getting it? Didn't the owner give t…

> Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right. Unless Section 230 gets repealed, it's the exact opposite, actually.

At a certain point moderation becomes speech. Literally these words are not my words, they are Meriam-Webster’s. I just chose which ones to include in my comment. In so doing I convey a particular message.
Post reply on HN