901–910 of 1001 posts
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 yet ofc they aren’t censored
Russian bounties and Trump's knowledge of it is fact, so is that Trump saying “I have never discussed it with him [putin]”
They're a publisher that edits content, plain and simple. Take away the platform status and let them play by the same rules as other publishers.
I think that would entrench the current tech giants because the liability to any startup entering the space would be huge and they wouldn't be big enough to partner with anyone. On the flipside, you'd have Facebook, Twitter, etc. partnering with media companies big enough to negotiate an indemnification clause into a contract that allows them into the recommendations engine(s). As soon as you start forcing liability…
People don’t register on Twitter to read Fox or CNN. They register to read other people.
Making Twitter a publisher increases costs a lot. Especially portion of the cost that’s proportional to count of users and volumes of content.
On-line ads don’t pay much per view, the only reason these companies are making so much money is they got crazy count of views with very low (in comparison) costs. They’ll have to find other sources of income.
They can charge readers, like newspapers did for centuries.
They can charge for publishing, I remember couple decades ago I was paying some reasonable subscription fee for a paid livejournal account, just to get rid of ads.
Either model is fine. They both fix the current outrage culture, by removing the incentive. These companies will stop optimizing content for count of views, and will start listening to users who became their customers.
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.
Maybe Twitter would have found other reasons to block the story if it didn't violate an explicit policy literally, for example it being fake news. Calling something fake news takes more investigation and judgement so the reason they gave was simplest.
It's like, boy, they sure have it in for a sleazy and deceptive hit-piece meant to influence an election at the last moment. Unfair!
Maybe getting rid of professional journalism, and crowd sourcing the news via secret algorithms, isn't such a great idea after all...
The “professional journalists” aren’t that great either. The field has been overtaken by 20 year olds. Even Matt Yglesias, who has spent most of his career to the left of Democrats as a whole, has been grumbling on his podcast about journalists these days failing to respect the difference between journalism and advocacy. Matt Taibbi (who I don’t like as a person but who is at least a real journalist) has written an e…
Is ageism really a valid critique on professional journalism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Was this Twitter policy new as in the last few days? 2) If not, how did they treat the NYT's Trump tax papers ( clearly hacked from some sources, since it was not revealed). For all one knows, at the time of release, it could have been fake? 3) Does twitter/FB have processes to identify hacked material? For these reasons, @jack's explanation is not being accepted.
It's fascinating to see papers like Washington Post turn their noses up at the Post story because they haven't independently corroborated it, yet they were immediately citing the NYT Tax story as gospel with no indication that they had independently corroborated the legitimacy of that evidence (I tracked down their first articles on the topic via Google News and found nothing indicating that they were able to indepen…
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, som…
The biggest difference IMO is that trolls were simply trolls, not paid adversaries or guerilla marketers or influence peddlers, so ignoring the trolls was an effective response. The bots nowadays also makes the volume of everything so much greater and harder to deal with.
The good old days aren't coming back.
Keep aside the accuracy of the NYPost story for a moment. With this move, Facebook and Twitter have effectively backed one political side over the other. Even if in the nitty-gritty they might not have, this is the perception that is sent out and is the perception that will be played to the hilt by the Trump camp. And timing of this is damning as well, with distrust of big tech and social media rising even before thi…
Pre- political cults, white nationalism, weakness, incompetence, immorality, corruption, laziness, and pettiness were not a "political side". If you want to call the Republican party a "side", then you need to disentangle these things first. Otherwise opposition to Republicans by any decent/educated person is easily explained.
You are probably aware then, that conservatives think of the Democrats as the global Cartel, consisting of - bribe takers and money launders - protege of sexual predators - systemic racists
And that claiming that this is a party, and they have a paritcular platform -- is like claiming that Mexican Mafia is a party with platform.
So you can imagine how suprised a conservative is, to learn of how many people lack even mediocre critical thinking, that is meant as immunity against manipulative and conniving propaganda machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter allowed the NY Times to post about Trump's tax returns after they were leaked by an IRS employee: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310474354967359489 The official policy appears to be flexible when the leaked supports Twitter's political opinions.
Unless the IRS was hacked, this comparison is invalid.
The PC was left at a repair shop unclaimed, it then became the shops property. They were explicitly given access to the material, but Hunter never picked it up, this isn't a hack, and far less a violation of privacy than the Federal Government employee's leaking personal tax information which they are legally obligated to keep private.
> 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…
And if the email is a fake one, it isnt personal information.
So why did they block it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think its correct to delibrately spread a false story about Hunter Biden? Is this type removing false information censorship?
How can you say its false. The FBI took it seriously. If we said the same about wikileaks or trump taxes we'd all flip out. Twitter shouldn't be the people who get to say whats false or not.
I can imagine a dystopian future in which three weeks before every election there's an explosion of insane bombshell claims about the candidates, with ever increasing effort put into them and no time to refute them before the vote. A misinformation arms war will ensue.