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

Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

nationalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#941

Post by dkdk8283 »

dionian wrote: post #903
Karunamon wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Clearly their partisan activism got the best of them. No longer can they merely label trump's tweets as misinfo, they have to start full-on censoring. They were probably trying to find a way to call this hate speech or racism to justify it.

I worked at a large media company and we held internal meetings essentially telling people how to vote. The media we promoted was aligned with this: all extreme left wing. It’s just as bad as trump. We’ve all lost.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#942

Post by libraryatnight »

_iyig wrote: post #701
libraryatnight wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other countless unverified scoops?

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...

That's not at all the same thing as what's happening here by a long shot though. Not even in the same arena. Can you truly not see that? Also, not countless. i can count that quite easily. I want droves of links showing this horrid double standard I keep hearing about.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#943

Post by rufusroflpunch »

_qulr wrote: post #864
rufusroflpunch wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens.

> I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the USA isn’t immutable and no government lasts forever. I agree with this. The Constitution is outdated in the extreme. We're long overdue for something new. > A divorce is coming and it’s better for everyone if it’s peaceful when it happens. A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin?

How about the Republic of Wisconsin? The divorce doesn’t need to end with only two parties.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#944

Post by trident1000 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #915
Karunamon wrote: post #291

This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…

Didn't Twitter and Google already stated they want regulation? They are one of the few companies that actually can facilitate any form of large scale content scanning. Such mechanisms take years to develop if you even get the critical data needed.

Companies only want regulation when it boxes out competitors.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#945

Post by pnw_hazor »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #528
throwawa3495 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait though, bc i really dont see it in any of these articles: who has been hacked?

The NY Post claims Hunter Biden's or one of his associates' laptops was hacked.

No one was hacked. The repair shop owned the laptop after it was abandoned.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#946

Post by jlokier »

runarberg wrote: post #936
jlokier wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't discuss human rights in absolute worldwide terms while looking at immigration systems, because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss, as far as I know. But we can discuss violations of what it is widely regarded should be universal human rights. Here's a list of some that I consider should be universal human rights, which are often violated by immigration systems: - The right of young…

> because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss This statement might be technically true in legal terms (I am not a lawyer so I don’t know), but there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], ratified by all 193 members of the United Nations. That is a good place to start. Additionally the UN has more in depth declarations (e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child[2]; which my native…

I agree with you, I think it's beautiful too. I'm a strong advocate for universal human rights - and for improving on the set of rights that we agree on.

> my native country of Iceland came within 5 minutes of breaking a month ago but the children were safely hid from the authorities who were going to unjustly deport them

A fine example answer to "How does the immigration system violate human rights?"

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#947

Post by runarberg »

dionian wrote: post #904
skrowl wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people believe that open borders to all countries are a human right.

I wonder what they use to justify this belief. I dont think it has a specific historical precedent

I’m not a historian but I would have thought that open borders were the norm not that long ago. I would guess that immigration restrictions wouldn’t have started to be commonplace until at least industrialization.

But regardless if that is right or not, siblings have pointed out that open borders are in fact common-place in many parts of the world today, e.g. EU and USA’s internal borders are open. And (as sibling has also pointed out) historic precedent or existing examples are not necessary to justify any belief. Abolishing slavery did not need a historic precedent, neither did gay rights, and theoretically neither does open borders.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#948

Post by 542354234235 »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #924
542354234235 wrote: post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employers should not be able to deny people their rights Freedom of speech means the government will not target you for expressing your opinion. It does not mean that your employer has to tolerate it. If I write an op-ed about how my employer makes a shoddy product, they are well within their legal rights to conduct their business how they see fit and terminate their business relationship with me. You seem to confu…

Yes this is why my OP is about making freedom of speech a civil right and extending its protections to private entities. Similar to how anti-discrimination protections are currently extended to private entities.

> making freedom of speech a civil right

Free speech is already a civil right. You are not talking about free speech. So employees would not be allowed to quit working for an employer because that employer used their free speech to support a position they were morally opposed to? Anti-discrimination laws almost exclusively protect who you are i.e. race, gender, nationality, religion, physical ability. Free speech is about the viewpoints you choose to express and the actions you choose to take. You have the freedom to speak and act how you choose, but I also have the freedom hear you and choose how I interact with you or choose not to at all. You can’t legislate that person A is free to speak but person B is not free to react to that speech, as you are restricting the basic freedom of person B. Of course, when B uses their speech and A is not free to react, you are now restricting everyone’s freedom and everyone loses their freedom. As opposed to not legislating the speech or the reactions to that speech and individuals have the freedom to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#949

Post by jungletime »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #609
dahfizz wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you seem so confident in a widespread democratic victory when the republicans did so well in 2016? EDIT: for those unaware, not only did the republican party take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2016. They also made big gains in state elections. In fact, the republican party had a 'trifecta' (house, senate, and executive) in 25/50 states. It was a very significant shift in power: https…

Many polls are showing a Biden win is above 80% probability, the House is solidly Dem, and a possible sweep in the Senate. Make of that what you will. Its a fair point that polls missed in 2016. 2020 has kicked the hornet’s nest (rather, the last four years), voter turnout appears to be higher than previous years, and I’d bet an expensive bottle of bourbon current polls align close to what results will be (with model…

The polls are way off because they oversample democrats, which can be seen when you start looking at results by counties.

Some rural counties that are know to be republican strong holds by a huge margin are favouring Biden by ridiculous amounts. Its not going to happen. Its obviously an error, and the accumulation of these errors are the final polls. (Source https://www.pscp.tv/w/1YqKDpqkYBOKV)

Its true that the democrats are winning the early mail in voting. But since republicans don't trust mail in voting, as Trump told them to vote in person. They will come out on election night, by a large margin.

Re: Facebook, Twitter block the NY Post from posting

#950

Post by pnw_hazor »

free_rms wrote: post #212
Arthanos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post has a very odd tone, as if a private company enforcing their policy to remove unverified & leaked personal correspondence of a private citizen is some unquestionable moral wrongdoing that's apparently going to blow up. Surprised to see this as at the top, on HN. National Review is a conservative wing-nut website trying to turn this non-story into fuel for their censorship culture war.

The pentagon papers were unverified and leaked. More recently and less impressively, the entire world of Russia-gate stuff was unverified and leaked Would you say the same if that stuff was censored?

60 Minutes 2 aired a slanderous story about George Bush based on documents they knew were unverified.

And, the timing is not suspicious it is politics.

Post reply on HN