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

Post by tru3_power » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

Post by twirlock » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 12:39 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #712

mhh__ wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Watergate was largely built off journalistic work not hacked materials, obviously deep throat was inside the FBI but he was never quoted

>obviously deep throat was inside the FBI Which is still a huge moral difference. I would have hoped that HN would be one community that would understand the difference between a whistleblower leaking data to journalists to expose a crime versus an outsider committing a crime in order to acquire data to leak for their own political gain. But I guess I shouldn't expect that considering many people here think Snowden,…

Post by strathmeyer » Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 5:33 AM UTC

chenzhekl wrote: post #791

sangnoir wrote: post #185

Why is everyone ignoring @jack's official explanation for why Twitter blocked the specific link from being shared? This is the one falsifiable action Twitter clearly took. Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses. I haven't seen any reasonable arguments again…

I don't think platforms like Twitter should act like such a gatekeeper. It's like being a rule maker and a judge at the same time, which could lead to abuse easily.

Post by dexwell » Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #751

naiveprogrammer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of blaming fake news and misinformation for the 2016 elections outcome, maybe the Democrats should look themselves in the mirror. I have yet to see a clear decisive causation link between the Russian interference (e.g. bot farms) and the outcome of the election. Of course there was interference, nobody denies it. But show me that these trolls swayed the election. There is none.

Is there a word for the typical arguments that you see where there are 100 false premises and to even make your case you have to dismantle each one? The Russia conspiracy theory is laden with these. So many conversations are very tedious because of the number of falsehoods you have to break down before you make any progress. Many folks seem to accept it as a given that troll farms were successful. The posts themselve…

Post by rabboRubble » Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 10:35 AM UTC