Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account(melovedata.com)
melovedata.com
Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account
https://www.melovedata.com/twitter-still-hasnt-unlocked-the-new-york-posts-account/
762 comments
Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven
It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it.
I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Not every article is going to be to your taste, or ape your point of view. And as newspapers go, it is very sensational. This is not a secret. Everyone knows what to expect when they pick up a copy. And they read it with that filter in mind. This is literacy 101.
But people on HN try to falsely characterize it as the equivalent of the National Enquirer. It isn't. It's a legitimate newspaper, whether you like it or not.
99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper. They just amplify and repeat the echo chamber hyperbole they see from other people who have never read the Post. Some of the most vocal have stated in other threads that they are Twitter employees.
If I have to choose between the Post being an information gatekeeper and Twitter, I'll go with the Post every time.
It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it.
I've been reading the Post off and on for the last 40 years, and you are correct that it is a rag. But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Not every article is going to be to your taste, or ape your point of view. And as newspapers go, it is very sensational. This is not a secret. Everyone knows what to expect when they pick up a copy. And they read it with that filter in mind. This is literacy 101.
But people on HN try to falsely characterize it as the equivalent of the National Enquirer. It isn't. It's a legitimate newspaper, whether you like it or not.
99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper. They just amplify and repeat the echo chamber hyperbole they see from other people who have never read the Post. Some of the most vocal have stated in other threads that they are Twitter employees.
If I have to choose between the Post being an information gatekeeper and Twitter, I'll go with the Post every time.
>> Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven
> It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up.
I can't ignore the irony here that you complain about straw-manning of the OP by cherry-picking the only negative comment in spite of the 99% of commentary in favor.
Edit: I also can't ignore that the plaint of pervasive "echo chamber hyperbole" is juxtaposed with statements like these:
> This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up.
> This is literacy 101.
> 99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper.
> It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up.
I can't ignore the irony here that you complain about straw-manning of the OP by cherry-picking the only negative comment in spite of the 99% of commentary in favor.
Edit: I also can't ignore that the plaint of pervasive "echo chamber hyperbole" is juxtaposed with statements like these:
> This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up.
> This is literacy 101.
> 99.9% of the Post criticism I see on HN is from people who have never lived in New York. Never actually read the Post, or any other newspaper.
Getting downvotes for this, not because there's any solid argument against what I'm saying, but because people are upset. The reason why I had to say something is because the GPs comment highlights much of what is wrong with online discourse.
That 'The New York Post has more merit than people afford it' might be worthy claim, but making a bunch of loud baseless claims isn't the way to convince people of it.
That 'The New York Post has more merit than people afford it' might be worthy claim, but making a bunch of loud baseless claims isn't the way to convince people of it.
It's not people being upset, it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful. Making a simple case is a lot more effective than vague comments on other people's cases.
> It's not people being upset
If it wasn't they would have critiqued my comment as you have. But instead it was a string of drive-by down-votes.
> it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful
I think it is important to point out bad faith dialogue wherever it is seen. And that's what I did, by pointing out the contradictions in the moral stance made, and then the poster completely disregarding them in the same breath.
> vague comments on other people's cases.
They weren't vague at all, they were very specific. The poster was making a rhetorical play rather than furthering the discussion, and I pointed it out with direct quotes.
If it wasn't they would have critiqued my comment as you have. But instead it was a string of drive-by down-votes.
> it's that talking about irony and juxtaposition is not helpful
I think it is important to point out bad faith dialogue wherever it is seen. And that's what I did, by pointing out the contradictions in the moral stance made, and then the poster completely disregarding them in the same breath.
> vague comments on other people's cases.
They weren't vague at all, they were very specific. The poster was making a rhetorical play rather than furthering the discussion, and I pointed it out with direct quotes.
> It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it.
I agree with that.
> A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on, it's not a news aggregation site and certainly isn't even a news generating company. Every news organization in the world could delete their Twitter account, and everyone could stop sharing links to news companies articles, and Twitter's purpose wouldn't change. Twitter doesn't hire journalists to research and write articles...
I agree with that.
> A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on, it's not a news aggregation site and certainly isn't even a news generating company. Every news organization in the world could delete their Twitter account, and everyone could stop sharing links to news companies articles, and Twitter's purpose wouldn't change. Twitter doesn't hire journalists to research and write articles...
Twitter restrict free speech using their selective outrage. It is morally reprehensible, but allowed.
They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform.
And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business
>" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
..."
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform.
And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business
>" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
..."
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
This is a strange reading of section 230. It seems like you're saying that Twitter is not a "provider...of an interactive computer service" because it is choosing what is on its platform, even though in section 2A it specifically provides protections for such providers to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene...or otherwise objectionable". If it is not allowed for a platform to remove content they find objectionable, then why call it out as protected here?
> Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on...
Anyone agreeing with Twitter's agenda, it appears.
Anyone agreeing with Twitter's agenda, it appears.
Why is this being downvoted? Because of someone else's tip, I tried tweeting these 7 characters: gtv.org and had my account locked within 3 seconds.
What kind of orwellian shit is that?!? The twitter account itself was used very sparingly to upload content from my PS4, not controversial in the least.
There is very clearly an agenda being applied here. Which is fine with me because this kind of repression is indication of desperation.
What kind of orwellian shit is that?!? The twitter account itself was used very sparingly to upload content from my PS4, not controversial in the least.
There is very clearly an agenda being applied here. Which is fine with me because this kind of repression is indication of desperation.
to whoever downvoted me, it's this simple.
You are either:
A platform. That allows all voices to be heard. 1st Amendment protections.
A publisher. That can edit or censor. And can be sued for slander and libel.
Whatever sophistry section 230 discussion is being fogged with, the above should be the way it is, period.
You are either:
A platform. That allows all voices to be heard. 1st Amendment protections.
A publisher. That can edit or censor. And can be sued for slander and libel.
Whatever sophistry section 230 discussion is being fogged with, the above should be the way it is, period.
Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant.
The NYPost is a platform with a (large) editorial slant.
Why should one be obligated to amplify the other? The NYPost gets to have an absolutely massive editorial slant (endorsing presidential candidates, etc) but Twitter can't? Should the NYPost be forced to amplify the NYTimes? What about other heavily user-driven platforms like HN and StackOverflow? Should HN be forbidden from curating its front page stories as well?
Keep in mind that HN itself is heavily curated. Should HN be allowed to do that?
(Browse HN with showdead on sometime to see what you're missing...)
The NYPost is a platform with a (large) editorial slant.
Why should one be obligated to amplify the other? The NYPost gets to have an absolutely massive editorial slant (endorsing presidential candidates, etc) but Twitter can't? Should the NYPost be forced to amplify the NYTimes? What about other heavily user-driven platforms like HN and StackOverflow? Should HN be forbidden from curating its front page stories as well?
Keep in mind that HN itself is heavily curated. Should HN be allowed to do that?
(Browse HN with showdead on sometime to see what you're missing...)
Twitter isn't obligated to allow anyone to use their platform, but as a user, I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my local library to ban certain books or Google to delist websites that it decides are bad. Twitter is within its right to do whatever it wants, but I don't want it curating my feed anymore than I want my phone to decide who I can and can't text message. And while I'm resigned to the fact that there will be some moderation on Twitter, to remove a longstanding newspaper for publishing a dubious story is an absurd overreach. They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run a social network.
Not to mention their rules are suspiciously narrowly enforced.
I don't want Twitter to curate what ideas and speakers
I'm exposed to, in the same way that I don't want my
local library to ban certain books or Google to
delist websites that it decides are bad
I do want Twitter to curate things, by filtering out news from biased sources with questionable alliances and borderline journalistic practices. I want them to be transparent about it, and if I don't like the way they do it I'll go elsewhere. To me, that is the free market -- not forcing Twitter to amplify all voices indiscriminately. If Twitter was the only game in town I'd feel differently, but that is far from the case.
I think most really do want some level of curation. Do you want child porn on your feed? Endless ads for fake Viagra? Animal abuse?
I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.
They were transparent about the reason, and I agreed with their move. That's all I ask. There are plenty of other places with more relaxed standards, and they're still available to me when I really want to drink from the firehose.
They can do it, but it's a silly, foolish way to run
a social network.
No, I don't want child porn on my feed, in my library, or in my Google results.
Illegal material aside, if someone posts something on Twitter that really disturbs me, I can block them. Twitter could create custom filters and let people opt in to them, too. But I want my technology to empower me, not infantalize me with paternalistic "protections."
I'm all for moderated communities. It's important for people to be able to create and define communities with their own rules and norms. But Twitter should be the value-neutral technology on which those communities are built. Empower us to create the world we want, don't force your vision on us.
Unfortunately, I think they feel responsible for the content now that they are actively picking what we see in our algorithmic feeds. The algorithmic feed was the first step in disempowering their users, and it logically leads to increasing censorship.
Illegal material aside, if someone posts something on Twitter that really disturbs me, I can block them. Twitter could create custom filters and let people opt in to them, too. But I want my technology to empower me, not infantalize me with paternalistic "protections."
I'm all for moderated communities. It's important for people to be able to create and define communities with their own rules and norms. But Twitter should be the value-neutral technology on which those communities are built. Empower us to create the world we want, don't force your vision on us.
Unfortunately, I think they feel responsible for the content now that they are actively picking what we see in our algorithmic feeds. The algorithmic feed was the first step in disempowering their users, and it logically leads to increasing censorship.
>I think most really do want some level of curation. Do you want child porn on your feed? Endless ads for fake Viagra? Animal abuse?
>I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.
Blocking NYPost is not curating the extreme content you state. Your argument is an attempt to imply that wanting the NYPost is akin to wanting the other.
>I cannot imagine a platform like Twitter being useful without some kind of curation. I realize that blocking the NYPost is an opinionated move in some ways.
Blocking NYPost is not curating the extreme content you state. Your argument is an attempt to imply that wanting the NYPost is akin to wanting the other.
Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and wild west Twitter.
Then all sensitive people can log into a pink bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored reality. Most people should realize that very few would choose the pink bubble. The line should be drawn at illegal content in the wild west Twitter.
You should trust other people to have the same ability as yourself to evaluate information.
You should trust other people to have the same ability as yourself to evaluate information.
Ironically, Twitter is already like this with follows and likes allowing people to construct their own bubbles.
Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when
you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and
wild west Twitter.
Then all sensitive people can log into a pink
bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored
reality. Most people should realize that very
few would choose the pink bubble.
I've not heard any claims of dissenting opinions censored by the mods here, but im sure its possible.
>Twitter is a platform with a editorial slant
Except that Twitter claims to be a neutral platform in order to benefit from Section 230. I agree with you that it's just another media outlet with a slant, but the government needs to start treating them like it.
Edit: I'm not going to risk posting another comment in this thread because I'm getting negative votes. I keep seeing this more and more and I'm baffled. I haven't called names or even been combative. Is this place reddit now, where you just downvote anyone you disagree with?
Except that Twitter claims to be a neutral platform in order to benefit from Section 230. I agree with you that it's just another media outlet with a slant, but the government needs to start treating them like it.
Edit: I'm not going to risk posting another comment in this thread because I'm getting negative votes. I keep seeing this more and more and I'm baffled. I haven't called names or even been combative. Is this place reddit now, where you just downvote anyone you disagree with?
Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. This is a common, but false, idea. Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...
Verge has a good article that discusses this in more detail: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/22/20700099/section-230-comm...
Yes. Section 230 doesn't require a platform to be neutral. But Twitter insists it's neutral, so it MUST be neutral.
I think Section 230 needs updating, badly.
I personally find value in entities like Hacker News, Twitter, StackOverflow, etc that curate their content. I of course do want transparency there.
I also value utterly unfiltered sources. But, I do not need or want every source to be unfiltered. Then everything becomes a firehose of utter garbage.
I think there is room for both. But it just makes zero sense to me to essentially force primarily user-driven platforms like Twitter to amplify/aggregate content from literally everybody. If they don't want to amplify the NYPost's stories, that should be their choice. And then I can choose not to read Twitter if I don't like that. I completely fail to see the problem.
I personally find value in entities like Hacker News, Twitter, StackOverflow, etc that curate their content. I of course do want transparency there.
I also value utterly unfiltered sources. But, I do not need or want every source to be unfiltered. Then everything becomes a firehose of utter garbage.
I think there is room for both. But it just makes zero sense to me to essentially force primarily user-driven platforms like Twitter to amplify/aggregate content from literally everybody. If they don't want to amplify the NYPost's stories, that should be their choice. And then I can choose not to read Twitter if I don't like that. I completely fail to see the problem.
I agree with you that it's just another media outlet
with a slant, but the government needs to start
treating them like it.
Just to clear the air, I am not a fan of the Post or the particular content that earned it its recent block. I agree that it's Twitter's platform, and they should be able to curate it as they see fit.
Here's how I see it: if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it. They are responsible for the user-generated content that they chose to publish. If instead I used my phone to start a phone tree to rouse people to ethnic violence, only the phone call makers would be responsible. The phone company just lets me place calls to whoever will receive them and transmits my messages.
Where does Facebook fall? Currently, if they allow people to start groups and publish materials calling for ethnic genocide and it leads to violence, they bear no responsibility. Sure, there's a continuum between phone and newspaper, but currently they are having their cake and eating it too. What should the law look like?
Free speech doesn't mean you are not responsible for the things you say (or re-transmit). If they want to be a non-neutral media outlet, Facebook, Twitter, et al. should be liable for the damages caused when their platform is involved in incitement of violence. If you're attacked by White supremacist counter-protestors, and it turns out they organized or promoted their activities on the platform, it should be partially responsible and should be a co-defendant in court.
Personally, I would prefer them to remain neutral platforms and focus their efforts on providing stronger abuse prevention that makes it harder for extremists to "amplify" their message into the feeds of people that don't want it instead of trying to whack-a-mole offensive content. Tools that would allow users to filter and block more easily, or even better selectively subscribe to the content they do want. I guess that would probably mean reduced engagement, though.
Here's how I see it: if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it. They are responsible for the user-generated content that they chose to publish. If instead I used my phone to start a phone tree to rouse people to ethnic violence, only the phone call makers would be responsible. The phone company just lets me place calls to whoever will receive them and transmits my messages.
Where does Facebook fall? Currently, if they allow people to start groups and publish materials calling for ethnic genocide and it leads to violence, they bear no responsibility. Sure, there's a continuum between phone and newspaper, but currently they are having their cake and eating it too. What should the law look like?
Free speech doesn't mean you are not responsible for the things you say (or re-transmit). If they want to be a non-neutral media outlet, Facebook, Twitter, et al. should be liable for the damages caused when their platform is involved in incitement of violence. If you're attacked by White supremacist counter-protestors, and it turns out they organized or promoted their activities on the platform, it should be partially responsible and should be a co-defendant in court.
Personally, I would prefer them to remain neutral platforms and focus their efforts on providing stronger abuse prevention that makes it harder for extremists to "amplify" their message into the feeds of people that don't want it instead of trying to whack-a-mole offensive content. Tools that would allow users to filter and block more easily, or even better selectively subscribe to the content they do want. I guess that would probably mean reduced engagement, though.
> if I wrote a letter to the editor to a popular US newspaper calling for an ethnic pogrom, they published it, and it incited riots or violence, that news paper would get tar sued out of it.
This is simply not true.
This is simply not true.
I’d be very interested in learning more about this then. Is the only thing keeping full page ads calling for people to kill BLM protestors out of the papers the papers’ own sense of decency?
Section 230 does not require a platform to be neutral. It never has.
I'd say the NY Post is free to post on the Gab network or on Parler. Twitter, a private company, is under no obligation to provide them a platform.
Should they continue be exempt from lawsuits per section 230
Section 230 doesn't require neutrality.
Correct. It requires companies no not be treated as publishers.
However if the companies themselves behave as publishers, yet avoid that designation bybhiding behind a regulation intended to protect Non-Publishers...
Then clesrly they are going against the spirit of the law and the law should be updated so there are consequences, particularly if they enjoy network effect monopolies.
This is very simple to do. Any company using 230, that is publicly listed, has more than 1B in revenue or 100M of users should inmediately lose section 230 protection. Full stop.
Any infotech company of size becomes very attractive for political influence, and should be closely watched for potential violation of campaing finance laws among other things.
However if the companies themselves behave as publishers, yet avoid that designation bybhiding behind a regulation intended to protect Non-Publishers...
Then clesrly they are going against the spirit of the law and the law should be updated so there are consequences, particularly if they enjoy network effect monopolies.
This is very simple to do. Any company using 230, that is publicly listed, has more than 1B in revenue or 100M of users should inmediately lose section 230 protection. Full stop.
Any infotech company of size becomes very attractive for political influence, and should be closely watched for potential violation of campaing finance laws among other things.
How is Twitter equivalent to a newspaper?
Twitter is a platform everyone gets to post stuff by default. You and many others make it sounds like Twitter has to deliberately to give permission to someone to make a post, so Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to post. This is such a B.S. argument. Twitter doesn't deliberately allow someone to post. No. It deliberately bans someone from make a post. Banning is its action.
The question is why Twitter bans NY post and this action needs explanation.
Twitter is a platform everyone gets to post stuff by default. You and many others make it sounds like Twitter has to deliberately to give permission to someone to make a post, so Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to post. This is such a B.S. argument. Twitter doesn't deliberately allow someone to post. No. It deliberately bans someone from make a post. Banning is its action.
The question is why Twitter bans NY post and this action needs explanation.
The Post was the newspaper with the good sports page and sport betting odds when I was growing up.
The paper version pretty much is just that today. Online, it’s a different spin looking for a similar audience. Instead of cranky Jets fans, it’s targeting blue collar conservatives. The quality is much lower imo — they run native content that looks like Taboola.
The paper version pretty much is just that today. Online, it’s a different spin looking for a similar audience. Instead of cranky Jets fans, it’s targeting blue collar conservatives. The quality is much lower imo — they run native content that looks like Taboola.
So? I don't want Twitter deciding what I can and can't read.
Fortunately, Twitter hasn’t taken down www.nypost.com.
[deleted]
I just checked, and yes Twitter can, just like you can’t force any business you want to stock copies of the nypost.
Also nypost.com is a thing.
The reality is that plenty of sites use Twitter as an essentially free billboard ad. Then get upset when they’re told they can’t put whatever they want on a billboard on private property, especially one that they have no contract to use, nor pay rent for.
Also nypost.com is a thing.
The reality is that plenty of sites use Twitter as an essentially free billboard ad. Then get upset when they’re told they can’t put whatever they want on a billboard on private property, especially one that they have no contract to use, nor pay rent for.
Ok. Except they happen to be the billboard of the world
Size matters. A highway billboard and a world billboard are not the same. Thats why we have antitrust laws. Microsoft doesnt get to do whatever it wants just because its a sovereign company. Twitter Goog Fb should not leverage protections originally intented for sites like HN
Size matters. A highway billboard and a world billboard are not the same. Thats why we have antitrust laws. Microsoft doesnt get to do whatever it wants just because its a sovereign company. Twitter Goog Fb should not leverage protections originally intented for sites like HN
> A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Hard nope there.
Hard nope there.
The post and fox news are absolutely light weight versions of the national enquirer. Regardless, Twitter can do what Twitter likes. You can start your own Twitter if you like. Twitters rights are as precious as fox news's.
It what sense are they lightweight not heavyweight?
It does matter! Twitter and Facebook swore that they would limit this kind of garbage rumor mill information for the election. if NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info. Twitter is a private company and they are trying to be more responsible about slowing the spread of disinformation. This is a good thing and not a bad thing.
> NYP would have showed how they verified the information then twitter would have let them spread the info.
Did Twitter or Facebook ever ask The Atlantic to "show them how they verified the information" about Trump calling war heroes "losers" and "suckers"?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...
That story was based on 100% anonymous sourced. Unverified, unverifiable by definition. People who were on the scene went on record to deny it. Twitter and Facebook were happy to spread it. The Atlantic accounts were never blocked.
How about the NYT story about Trump's tax returns, also based on 100% anonymous, unauthorized, unverified document leak? Has the NYT account been blocked for that, too?
By contrast, the NYP actually did explain how they got the emails: from a laptop dropped off and signed for by Hunter Biden himself at a PC repair shop.
The double standard here is beyond obvious.
Did Twitter or Facebook ever ask The Atlantic to "show them how they verified the information" about Trump calling war heroes "losers" and "suckers"?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...
That story was based on 100% anonymous sourced. Unverified, unverifiable by definition. People who were on the scene went on record to deny it. Twitter and Facebook were happy to spread it. The Atlantic accounts were never blocked.
How about the NYT story about Trump's tax returns, also based on 100% anonymous, unauthorized, unverified document leak? Has the NYT account been blocked for that, too?
By contrast, the NYP actually did explain how they got the emails: from a laptop dropped off and signed for by Hunter Biden himself at a PC repair shop.
The double standard here is beyond obvious.
Twitter's official reason for blocking the account is because it has refused to delete a tweet linking to what the tweeter claims are stolen private photos and documents. Not because of fake news.
Twitter's official reason would require it to block the NYT for posting the story about Trump's tax returns since it is based on illegally-leaked private documents.
Yet Twitter did not block the NYT or its story. Instead, it blocked NYP, even though it had no evidence the NYP story was based on "stolen private documents", while the NYT story clearly and admittedly was.
Again, the double standard couldn't be more obvious.
Yet Twitter did not block the NYT or its story. Instead, it blocked NYP, even though it had no evidence the NYP story was based on "stolen private documents", while the NYT story clearly and admittedly was.
Again, the double standard couldn't be more obvious.
Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources, which prevents many stories from being independently verified. However they can be verified by other news outlets, who have their own sources. The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP. But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit.
The "double standard" idea makes my blood boil, because it casts basic facts in partisan terms. Twitter fact-checked Trump tweets, but not Biden tweets. But that's not a double standard; it's a single standard, and it just so happens that Biden does not tweet outright lies such as "California sends a ballot to anyone living in the state."
Twitter clearly does not want to be in this position and the right-wing misinformation machine is exploiting that aggressively. The NYPost story got a huge Streisand-effect boost. It's impossible to give Twitter good advice today.
The "double standard" idea makes my blood boil, because it casts basic facts in partisan terms. Twitter fact-checked Trump tweets, but not Biden tweets. But that's not a double standard; it's a single standard, and it just so happens that Biden does not tweet outright lies such as "California sends a ballot to anyone living in the state."
Twitter clearly does not want to be in this position and the right-wing misinformation machine is exploiting that aggressively. The NYPost story got a huge Streisand-effect boost. It's impossible to give Twitter good advice today.
The NYP story was blocked by Twitter and Facebook immediately upon publication. Why wasn't the "losers and suckers" story likewise blocked until it was verified?
Both stories had no external verification upon publication. One was blocked immediately. The other never was.
> The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP.
One can't "independently" verify a story based purely on anonymous sources. Can you link these alleged verifications?
> But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit.
Not true. The NYP story cited sources, and these sources have seen been verified, for example by the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Your comment that they never asked Biden to comment is likewise untrue. This would be plainly ridiculous: all we'd need to know if a story is true is to see if they asked for a comment from the subject. In fact, plenty of untrue stories ask for these comments. Why wouldn't they? Do they want to make it obvious they are false?
Both stories had no external verification upon publication. One was blocked immediately. The other never was.
> The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP.
One can't "independently" verify a story based purely on anonymous sources. Can you link these alleged verifications?
> But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit.
Not true. The NYP story cited sources, and these sources have seen been verified, for example by the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Your comment that they never asked Biden to comment is likewise untrue. This would be plainly ridiculous: all we'd need to know if a story is true is to see if they asked for a comment from the subject. In fact, plenty of untrue stories ask for these comments. Why wouldn't they? Do they want to make it obvious they are false?
The NYP asked for comment. What they didn't do was show Biden the laptop or documents they claimed were authentic. Then they ran a claim that Biden refused to refute the documents (without admitting that they refused to show him the documents or laptop.)
So we are now holding the NYP to impossible standards that no other publication must meet.
A paper is not even required to ask for a comment from a subject of an expose. Thousands of stories are posted on Twitter every day by news outlets that did not request or include a response from their subject.
Now we have people claiming that not only does NYP have to request a response from its subject, it must also provide them the subject with source material for their article. Ridiculous.
Also, Joe Biden isn't even the subject of the NYP article - Hunter Biden is. Yet you are implying that Joe Biden must have been given the full source materials of the article and an opportunity to examine and respond to them, or else Twitter can block the story.
Was Trump afforded the same opportunity to examine the source material of the NYT story about his supposed tax returns?
The NYT still hasn't released that source material!
A paper is not even required to ask for a comment from a subject of an expose. Thousands of stories are posted on Twitter every day by news outlets that did not request or include a response from their subject.
Now we have people claiming that not only does NYP have to request a response from its subject, it must also provide them the subject with source material for their article. Ridiculous.
Also, Joe Biden isn't even the subject of the NYP article - Hunter Biden is. Yet you are implying that Joe Biden must have been given the full source materials of the article and an opportunity to examine and respond to them, or else Twitter can block the story.
Was Trump afforded the same opportunity to examine the source material of the NYT story about his supposed tax returns?
The NYT still hasn't released that source material!
> By contrast, the NYP actually did explain how they got the emails: from a laptop dropped off and signed for by Hunter Biden himself at a PC repair shop.
Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off. What are the priors on that? Turning up a week before the election?
The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?
Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off. What are the priors on that? Turning up a week before the election?
The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?
> Yes, from a man who happens to be legally blind and can't verify who dropped it off.
Still more verifiable sources than the Atlantic and NYT stories, which were based on zero verifiable sources.
> Turning up a week before the election?
The Atlantic and NYT stories were also published very recently, also a few weeks before the election.
> The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?
The NYT story was based on illegally leaked tax returns. Whoever leaked these documents has not only breached their duty of confidentiality and privacy that they owe every taxpayer - they in fact committed a crime.
Why didn't Twitter and Facebook block a story that could only come from a source who breached their legal duties and committed a crime? And in your words, how can we trust such a source?
Still more verifiable sources than the Atlantic and NYT stories, which were based on zero verifiable sources.
> Turning up a week before the election?
The Atlantic and NYT stories were also published very recently, also a few weeks before the election.
> The was supposed to be a professional servicing a machine, he violated his clients privacy for his own purposes, and now we're to trust him?
The NYT story was based on illegally leaked tax returns. Whoever leaked these documents has not only breached their duty of confidentiality and privacy that they owe every taxpayer - they in fact committed a crime.
Why didn't Twitter and Facebook block a story that could only come from a source who breached their legal duties and committed a crime? And in your words, how can we trust such a source?
One difference is that NYT isn't publishing the documents, only claims about them. Twitter doesn't censor unverifiable claims, such as the Presidents own claims about his tax returns.
The Post refuses to take down the link to what they claim are private photos and documents.
It seems pretty clear that they prefer to keep the conversation focused on the censorship of private photos (which they can then conflate with censorship of their corruption allegations) instead of on the mix of nothingburger and likely faked evidence against Joe Biden.
The Post refuses to take down the link to what they claim are private photos and documents.
It seems pretty clear that they prefer to keep the conversation focused on the censorship of private photos (which they can then conflate with censorship of their corruption allegations) instead of on the mix of nothingburger and likely faked evidence against Joe Biden.
If any story based on "private photos and documents" is to be blocked, then most news stories must be blocked on Twitter.
That includes the Snowden leaks, Panama Papers, the Pentagon Papers, virtually all Wikileaks releases, and many of the most important news stories of the past several decades.
Twitter pretends to have standards by which any news story can be censored, then uses that standard to very selectively block specific stories as they choose.
Also, from a journalistic perspective, it is much better to publish the source documents, as NYP has done, rather than quote from them liberally without publishing the original, as the NYT has done.
That includes the Snowden leaks, Panama Papers, the Pentagon Papers, virtually all Wikileaks releases, and many of the most important news stories of the past several decades.
Twitter pretends to have standards by which any news story can be censored, then uses that standard to very selectively block specific stories as they choose.
Also, from a journalistic perspective, it is much better to publish the source documents, as NYP has done, rather than quote from them liberally without publishing the original, as the NYT has done.
I mean, on the face of it, Trump's taxes leaking seems likely, almost inevitable, and surprising it hadn't happened sooner. He has no shortage of people who have seen his taxes, and no shortage of disgruntled folks. Whereas a conveniently placed laptop just left somewhere with incriminating emails seems to test credulity. The laptop seems like a foreign psyop, the taxes seems like something everyone thought inevitable, and that he told us he was going to do himself.
There's a reason that sources remain anonymous, and I'm not sure I see an equivalency here. Look at what happened to Lt. Colonel Vindman. It seems like having a standard of "you must lose your livelihood to alert the world to something" might be a good way to keep all sorts of secrets bottled up, to everyone's detriment.
There's a reason that sources remain anonymous, and I'm not sure I see an equivalency here. Look at what happened to Lt. Colonel Vindman. It seems like having a standard of "you must lose your livelihood to alert the world to something" might be a good way to keep all sorts of secrets bottled up, to everyone's detriment.
> It doesn't matter. This strawman is presented every time this topic comes up. It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it.
Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it.
> But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Twitter is not a newspaper. Or a news organization. It's a social network.
> But people on HN try to falsely characterize it as the equivalent of the National Enquirer.
That's debatable. You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case.
As for the National Enquirer, nobody takes them seriously or call it a legitimate newspaper. That's why it's important to hold the NY Post to a higher standard.
Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it.
> But it is a newspaper. A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter.
Twitter is not a newspaper. Or a news organization. It's a social network.
> But people on HN try to falsely characterize it as the equivalent of the National Enquirer.
That's debatable. You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case.
As for the National Enquirer, nobody takes them seriously or call it a legitimate newspaper. That's why it's important to hold the NY Post to a higher standard.
> You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case.
Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. In fact, it's "the responsible thing to do"!
Also, stating that NYP "publishes some of the lowest quality journalism" is an insane hyperbole with no basis in reality. It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US.
This story, specifically, had more verifiable sources than plenty of recently published stories which cite only "anonymous" sources and are therefore completely unverifiable.
Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. In fact, it's "the responsible thing to do"!
Also, stating that NYP "publishes some of the lowest quality journalism" is an insane hyperbole with no basis in reality. It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US.
This story, specifically, had more verifiable sources than plenty of recently published stories which cite only "anonymous" sources and are therefore completely unverifiable.
> Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it.
The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already.
> It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US.
It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. Lower than that it shouldn't be called a news outlet.
The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already.
> It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US.
It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. Lower than that it shouldn't be called a news outlet.
Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies, they start arbitrarily cracking down on speech they dislike.
The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming.
If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it.
> It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics.
So convenient that you can know everything about The Post without apparently reading it at all.
Also, seems we no longer need to bother looking at facts or evidence. If a news story is vaguely associated with someone we dislike, we can just declare it wrongthink and dismiss it completely without further discussion.
In fact, you strongly advocate that it should be blocked from being published at all. If a piece of information is associated with a group or person we dislike for any reason, we should consign it to the memory hole. We shouldn't let people make up their own mind, we should make it for them.
The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming.
If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it.
> It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics.
So convenient that you can know everything about The Post without apparently reading it at all.
Also, seems we no longer need to bother looking at facts or evidence. If a news story is vaguely associated with someone we dislike, we can just declare it wrongthink and dismiss it completely without further discussion.
In fact, you strongly advocate that it should be blocked from being published at all. If a piece of information is associated with a group or person we dislike for any reason, we should consign it to the memory hole. We shouldn't let people make up their own mind, we should make it for them.
>If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it.
This is essentially the problem. FAANG are the gateways to the web and having your content removed from them makes it considerably harder to have a web presence.
I'm sure most sane people would not want tech companies to be the arbiters of truth, though the solution as to how people can consume information without the inherent bias of platforms/algorithms/company policy remains to be seen.
This is essentially the problem. FAANG are the gateways to the web and having your content removed from them makes it considerably harder to have a web presence.
I'm sure most sane people would not want tech companies to be the arbiters of truth, though the solution as to how people can consume information without the inherent bias of platforms/algorithms/company policy remains to be seen.
> The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already.
That's not true. NYP:s audience is much bigger than Gab or Parler.
That's not true. NYP:s audience is much bigger than Gab or Parler.
You mean they can use the sites that are also censored by Google and Apple via their app stores?
What people on these threads never seen to think about is, how long until Chrome starts blocking "misinformation"? Would you be making the same arguments then because, someone could theoretically download a separate web browser that nobody has ever heard of?
The problem with these arguments is there's no obvious end to them. They are very much a slippery slope. It ends with people who want to criticise the Democrats having to build their own internet out of their own cables and radios, which would be a de-facto China-style totalitarian society.
The problem is the sort of people who now work for these tech firms are fundamentally untrustworthy, and appear to have kicked out or 'converted' the people who used to work there who were. We are now left with a big pile of infrastructures and institutions that are controlled by political extremists.
Unfortunately this means that if Biden does win his critics will claim his win wasn't legitimate/fair, just like Trump's critics claimed about Russia. Except "Trump won because of Russia" was investigated deeply and there was nothing there, whereas tech company censorship is plain as day and visible for all to see.
What people on these threads never seen to think about is, how long until Chrome starts blocking "misinformation"? Would you be making the same arguments then because, someone could theoretically download a separate web browser that nobody has ever heard of?
The problem with these arguments is there's no obvious end to them. They are very much a slippery slope. It ends with people who want to criticise the Democrats having to build their own internet out of their own cables and radios, which would be a de-facto China-style totalitarian society.
The problem is the sort of people who now work for these tech firms are fundamentally untrustworthy, and appear to have kicked out or 'converted' the people who used to work there who were. We are now left with a big pile of infrastructures and institutions that are controlled by political extremists.
Unfortunately this means that if Biden does win his critics will claim his win wasn't legitimate/fair, just like Trump's critics claimed about Russia. Except "Trump won because of Russia" was investigated deeply and there was nothing there, whereas tech company censorship is plain as day and visible for all to see.
>Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it.
how is that worse than letting Rupert Murdoch control every newspaper, whose media conglomerate makes Twitter look tiny in comparison. As much as Dorsey an all the other techbros annoy me at least he's not an outright right-wing cartoon villain
how is that worse than letting Rupert Murdoch control every newspaper, whose media conglomerate makes Twitter look tiny in comparison. As much as Dorsey an all the other techbros annoy me at least he's not an outright right-wing cartoon villain
>Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it.
So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?
So is Verizon. Do you want to live in a world where your phone gets turned off if they don't like the conversation?
You have no intrinsic right to a mobile telephone, so we do live in this world.
If it made business sense for them to do this, they would.
Call in a few threats to local businesses or SWAT someone and see how long it takes for your phone to get disabled.
If it made business sense for them to do this, they would.
Call in a few threats to local businesses or SWAT someone and see how long it takes for your phone to get disabled.
Do you have evidence of that ever happening?
I've never read that in a swatting story.
Twitter disabling the NY Post doesn't make 'business sense' under any conventional definition of business, unless you consider election manipulation for the benefit of one political party to have near unlimited business upside.
What we're dealing with here is not ordinary abuse control of the sort that isn't controversial, and it's a false equivalence to connect the two. It's outright suppression of doing anything that might harm the political left.
What we're dealing with here is not ordinary abuse control of the sort that isn't controversial, and it's a false equivalence to connect the two. It's outright suppression of doing anything that might harm the political left.
[deleted]
To that point, a small number of companies entirely dominate all social media at this point:
Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tiktok.
Collectively they form an extreme oligopoly position, something quite comparable to the telecom oligopoly. They should be held to a different standard accordingly, if they want to retain such power in our society. If only a few of them simultaneously collude to censor, it has what can only be considered something akin to direct government censorship in the impact it has: you are without voice while everyone else is holding a bullhorn.
In this day and age, being denied access to social media is probably even more socially & culturally punishing than having your phone number turned off. It's more akin to not allowing people to leave their homes and enter public spaces, not allowing them to ever protest, not allowing them to ever voice their opinions in a public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, Tiktok.
Collectively they form an extreme oligopoly position, something quite comparable to the telecom oligopoly. They should be held to a different standard accordingly, if they want to retain such power in our society. If only a few of them simultaneously collude to censor, it has what can only be considered something akin to direct government censorship in the impact it has: you are without voice while everyone else is holding a bullhorn.
In this day and age, being denied access to social media is probably even more socially & culturally punishing than having your phone number turned off. It's more akin to not allowing people to leave their homes and enter public spaces, not allowing them to ever protest, not allowing them to ever voice their opinions in a public square.
It's tautological to say that the sites people use ate the sites people use. Putting TikTok on your list shows the emptiness of the argument. When a new site offers something the others don't, people migrate.
> That's debatable. You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case.
While I agree with you, something in your comment made me think. "What does not kill you makes you stronger". Maybe the test of our times is that we as a society learn how to ignore the trash ourselves, or if we do not learn the lesson, we perish. Do we want to learn to ignore, or learn to police?
While I agree with you, something in your comment made me think. "What does not kill you makes you stronger". Maybe the test of our times is that we as a society learn how to ignore the trash ourselves, or if we do not learn the lesson, we perish. Do we want to learn to ignore, or learn to police?
> if we do not learn the lesson, we perish
Would you consider Twitter refusing to propagate this nonsense "learning a lesson"? I would.
Would you consider Twitter refusing to propagate this nonsense "learning a lesson"? I would.
> They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it.
And what causes it??
What if censorship itself causes hate speech?
And what causes it??
What if censorship itself causes hate speech?
> What if censorship itself causes hate speech?
What if windmills cause cancer? What if toenails cause climate change? Why do birds?
What if windmills cause cancer? What if toenails cause climate change? Why do birds?
Referencing actual logic people use regarding drugs/alcohol prohibition for those that didn't follow.
Also, the creation of echo chambers and political polarization.
And the Streisand effect as stories like this get more press from the censorship news itself.
And the motivation I feel to beat this drum ever harder as people respond with downvotes and snark.
And the Streisand effect as stories like this get more press from the censorship news itself.
And the motivation I feel to beat this drum ever harder as people respond with downvotes and snark.
> What if censorship itself causes hate speech?
Hate speech existed before Twitter and will likely persist after it. Other social networks that allegedly do not practice content moderation also have identifiable hate speech content in them.
Hate speech existed before Twitter and will likely persist after it. Other social networks that allegedly do not practice content moderation also have identifiable hate speech content in them.
If you're going to reduce the argument solely to twitter, then can't you say the same for any other alleged "cause" on twitter being censored? And therefore take your argument up with the parent poster instead of me?
We are not discussing the right of a private company to refuse service. We are discussing Twitter's right to refuse service to the NY Post for posting misleading information with the goal of interfering in a presidential election.
> Twitter is a private company. They constantly, if unevenly, exercise their right to ban hate speech and what causes it.
It's actually the uneven enforcement of their own terms of service that is primarily of issue and further whether their actions constitute an illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats by way of their intentionally tilted censorship.
If the DOJ were doing its job, they would be crushing Twitter right now with lawsuits over how Twitter selectively applies their terms of service to different groups when they feel like it. The Feds could make it extremely expensive to behave the way Twitter is. There are several other federal agencies that should be pursuing Twitter as well, that likely have legal ground to do so over these matters.
It's quite simple for Twitter: stop the intentionally selective application of your terms of service. Stop letting one side get away with constantly violating the terms of service with no consequences, while only aggressively punishing the political side you dislike.
It's actually the uneven enforcement of their own terms of service that is primarily of issue and further whether their actions constitute an illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats by way of their intentionally tilted censorship.
If the DOJ were doing its job, they would be crushing Twitter right now with lawsuits over how Twitter selectively applies their terms of service to different groups when they feel like it. The Feds could make it extremely expensive to behave the way Twitter is. There are several other federal agencies that should be pursuing Twitter as well, that likely have legal ground to do so over these matters.
It's quite simple for Twitter: stop the intentionally selective application of your terms of service. Stop letting one side get away with constantly violating the terms of service with no consequences, while only aggressively punishing the political side you dislike.
Per Citizens United, there's no such thing as an "illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats."
> their actions constitute an illegal campaign contribution to the Democrats by way of their intentionally tilted censorship.
The sheer volume of right wing propaganda that escapes their moderators would indicate the exact opposite. They suppressed this one so it wouldn't be glaringly obvious they ignore right wing abuses.
The sheer volume of right wing propaganda that escapes their moderators would indicate the exact opposite. They suppressed this one so it wouldn't be glaringly obvious they ignore right wing abuses.
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all.
Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - basically a lower bar (on accuracy) should result both in lower reaction time, and in more false positives.
A comment to a sibling comment: I personally find lower time-to-publish immensely valuable - I prefer to assess the accuracy of news stories myself (usually considering the original source and how aligned their interests are with the published information), and I find almost no value in the supposedly "trustworthy" media because they're not actually trustworthy to me (besides the obvious political bias, there's also plenty of high-profile non-culture-wars fake news, e.g. Iraqi WMD, Bloomberg's China spying debacle, the current (non-)coverage of Assange, ...). If there's anything I've learned in the past 10 or so years, is that the "experts" are barely any better than myself at discerning what's true or not, and much less trustworthy.
Interesting... after reading this, I immediately thought: same as Zero Hedge (also often criticised). But then again, that shouldn't be a surprise - basically a lower bar (on accuracy) should result both in lower reaction time, and in more false positives.
A comment to a sibling comment: I personally find lower time-to-publish immensely valuable - I prefer to assess the accuracy of news stories myself (usually considering the original source and how aligned their interests are with the published information), and I find almost no value in the supposedly "trustworthy" media because they're not actually trustworthy to me (besides the obvious political bias, there's also plenty of high-profile non-culture-wars fake news, e.g. Iraqi WMD, Bloomberg's China spying debacle, the current (non-)coverage of Assange, ...). If there's anything I've learned in the past 10 or so years, is that the "experts" are barely any better than myself at discerning what's true or not, and much less trustworthy.
ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else, which is bound to happen if you don’t validate as well—sometimes you do strike gold.
A comment I saw once about them was “ZH has reported five of the last three catastrophes”.
A comment I saw once about them was “ZH has reported five of the last three catastrophes”.
"ZH was talking about coronavirus way earlier than anyone else"
I've seen that claim too and found it questionable. Almost every major news outlet that would cover international news I found had some story about coronavirus pretty dang early. It wasn't a breathless story predicting the impact, but they covered it.
I feel like most media "media does this" or "didn't do that" is mostly just what passed in front of someone's nose.
Purely anecdotal experience of mine was a reddit story ages ago that was "The Media is too busy covering X to cover this story Y."
Purely out of curiosity I turned around and flipped on the TV and checked the news channels. The first 3 news channels, 2 were covering Y... but the claims about nobody covering it were constant.
I've seen that claim too and found it questionable. Almost every major news outlet that would cover international news I found had some story about coronavirus pretty dang early. It wasn't a breathless story predicting the impact, but they covered it.
I feel like most media "media does this" or "didn't do that" is mostly just what passed in front of someone's nose.
Purely anecdotal experience of mine was a reddit story ages ago that was "The Media is too busy covering X to cover this story Y."
Purely out of curiosity I turned around and flipped on the TV and checked the news channels. The first 3 news channels, 2 were covering Y... but the claims about nobody covering it were constant.
ZH was saying that it was going to be a catastrophe before China even started lying about how they had it under control.
To be fair, almost everything on ZH is predicting catastrophe - ZH is rife with prepper-flavored "this is the big one" reports on things like FEMA operations, rumors of potential false flag attacks, and of course various financial instrument movements. 99% of what ZH says is the end of all things fades into nothingness.
ZH is the canonical example of a correct-twice-daily broken clock.
ZH is the canonical example of a correct-twice-daily broken clock.
Exactly this! Thank you. ZeroHedge almost seems to be designed to induce anxiety and spread disinformation.
Oh for sure. They’re a bunch of lunatics. If you assume the worst four times a day you’re going to be correct sooner or later.
> China even started lying about how they had it under control.
If you think China was lying about it, you should see the public statements of checks notes every head of state in the West.
If you think China was lying about it, you should see the public statements of checks notes every head of state in the West.
Outside of Trump... i'm not aware of any large scale deception or ... just plain ignorance when it comes to trump.
Britain said that they could go for a "herd immunity strategy", several European governments said that masks were not useful for ordinary people, claims that the virus was under control, even people saying "don't stop going to bars", entire governments deciding to stop releasing information about cases, etc., etc.
There was a whole lot that people didn't know, especially early. There were quite a few failures of communication and delays.
China was certainly communicating warnings about the virus by early January.
There was a whole lot that people didn't know, especially early. There were quite a few failures of communication and delays.
China was certainly communicating warnings about the virus by early January.
> several European governments said that masks were not useful for ordinary people,
For the very simple reason that there weren't enough masks for the people that needed them ( medical personnel), and the last thing you wants in such a scenario is for the public to freak out and fight over the already non-existing stocks.
Plenty of governments were too slow to react ( with lockdowns/limitations, or planning), but to say all Western leaders failed is simply wrong.
For the very simple reason that there weren't enough masks for the people that needed them ( medical personnel), and the last thing you wants in such a scenario is for the public to freak out and fight over the already non-existing stocks.
Plenty of governments were too slow to react ( with lockdowns/limitations, or planning), but to say all Western leaders failed is simply wrong.
They were wrong, potentially and have adjusted their stance since.
They’re still poorly managing it because they lack decent information. I’d argue it’s the fault of the civil service that they’ve been crippling and obvious cronyism (e.g. Dido Harding) not equipped to provide decent information that they need for decision making.
They’re still poorly managing it because they lack decent information. I’d argue it’s the fault of the civil service that they’ve been crippling and obvious cronyism (e.g. Dido Harding) not equipped to provide decent information that they need for decision making.
> They were wrong, potentially and have adjusted their stance since.
Yes, and there is a period between where they realize they are wrong, where they reformulate their message and then communicate that publicly. What we're discussing here is a similar gap of 2-4 days between evidence of person-to-person spread and communication.
Meanwhile, we have no idea when the US president even first tested positive for covid.
Yes, and there is a period between where they realize they are wrong, where they reformulate their message and then communicate that publicly. What we're discussing here is a similar gap of 2-4 days between evidence of person-to-person spread and communication.
Meanwhile, we have no idea when the US president even first tested positive for covid.
The British government was very upfront about the fact that it wasn't under control very early on. That honesty doesn't seem to have worked out very well for them politically - I'm pretty sure that being so upfront about it fuelled a lot of the speculation about herd immunity, which somehow seems to have outlasted the current Europe-wide practical demonstration that yes, lockdown fatigue is real no matter what the British press said at the time - but you certainly can't argue that they lied about it like China did.
4Chan is light years ahead of ZH and the rest. There were posts that were so eerily accurate about the virus late Dec into the first couple of weeks of January it was freakish.
People like to write off 4Chan for all the shit posting and racism, etc. But if you can ignore all that there are truly some amazing Gems to be found.
People like to write off 4Chan for all the shit posting and racism, etc. But if you can ignore all that there are truly some amazing Gems to be found.
Source on the late December? Early January is irrelevant, but I would like to see the former if that is a true claim.
You can check on 4plebs. I don't read 4chan, but the same is true of 8chan and far-right Telegram - extremist doomers tend to be good early warning system for incidents that seem to bear out their apocalyptic worldview.
Maybe so, but I absolutely don't believe that anybody on 4chan was discussing covid prior to December 29. People can pretend it gets the "scoop" all they want in their little fantasy world, just want to call out the veracity of those claims when I see them.
It seems they first took up discussing it on January 2, (based on a CBS news report) which is reasonably quick off the mark. The main difference between imageboards and other media is their willingness to take up a topic seriously before it arrives in the mainstream, for good or (more often) ill.
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/238064455/#238064455
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/238064455/#238064455
Yes, those comments are definitely indicative of them taking it seriously.
Pretty quick, I'll give them that, but not before coverage - this is only a week or so before I became aware of the virus. Granted, I was traveling in China at the time, but it was known.
Pretty quick, I'll give them that, but not before coverage - this is only a week or so before I became aware of the virus. Granted, I was traveling in China at the time, but it was known.
I only mean seriously in the sense of giving their attention to it, in somewhat the same way as sewer sampling can be a useful way to detect emerging COVID clusters. Online extremists glom onto anything involving political instability because it's a potential opportunity. I noticed the same thing with the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
There is also this October 2019 thread [0] which mentions a coronavirus-like bioweapon, which, like the "High Incident Project" thread [1] (covered by snopes here [2]) is often pointed to by conspiracy theorists as examples of insiders leaking information on 4chan before events of global significance.
In my analysis I find these are examples of fitting events to predictions after the fact; the huge number of 'larp' threads on conspiracy forums allows for cherry-picking examples where some content later rhymed with reality.
[0] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/230585890/#q230593401
[1] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141096258/#141102703
[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/4chan-user-prediction-las-...
In my analysis I find these are examples of fitting events to predictions after the fact; the huge number of 'larp' threads on conspiracy forums allows for cherry-picking examples where some content later rhymed with reality.
[0] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/230585890/#q230593401
[1] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141096258/#141102703
[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/4chan-user-prediction-las-...
That 4chan thread is talking about the October 2019 report from
https://www.ghsindex.org/
sponsored in part by the Gates Foundation and reported by the Washington Post and others, retweeted by Joe Biden.
This was not secret insider information.
https://www.ghsindex.org/
sponsored in part by the Gates Foundation and reported by the Washington Post and others, retweeted by Joe Biden.
This was not secret insider information.
The closest I could find in online archives to a December 2019 pandemic discussion on 4chan was this single (terribly racist and cruel) comment from December 30th[0], "Don't worry. The worlds going to suffer a global pandemic soon (very, very, soon) which will wipe out poor urban populations..."
[0] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/237746333/#q237746818 (Warning, this link contains graphic hate speech like much of 4chan does and is not suitable for human consumption.)
[0] https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/237746333/#q237746818 (Warning, this link contains graphic hate speech like much of 4chan does and is not suitable for human consumption.)
As expected.
Wasn't some mathematical problem solved by 4chan?
https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-help...
https://www.wired.com/story/how-an-anonymous-4chan-post-help...
It also serves to amplify a lot of fake stories without doing any research to confirm if there is any proof of said stories.
Yikes - I've found Zerohedge to be scarily accurate over time! Depends on your political allegiances I suppose but my mother taught me when i was kid to always read the financial press - 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking' was her old line. (she used to work for the UK tory party in the '50's, despised them).
ZH is what many city of London and wall street minions read live on their bloomberg terminals, for better or worse...
Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish'
Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish'
> scarily accurate
As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions. They have a consistently bearish bias (which rarely seems to play out), and ties to the Russian state, which brings into question the motivations behind their criticisms of the US (not that I'm the biggest fan myself).
All of that said, ZH introduced me to a lot of economic literature and concepts I likely wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. They touch on niche subjects constantly, and I have to give them credit for broadening my understanding of economics in general.
As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions. They have a consistently bearish bias (which rarely seems to play out), and ties to the Russian state, which brings into question the motivations behind their criticisms of the US (not that I'm the biggest fan myself).
All of that said, ZH introduced me to a lot of economic literature and concepts I likely wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. They touch on niche subjects constantly, and I have to give them credit for broadening my understanding of economics in general.
ZH proudly flaunts their bearish bias. The name Zero Hedge really says it all. Their motto, 'On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everybody drops to zero', makes this explicit.
Exactly. They are glass half empty paranoids, as are many traders in financial markets, their primary audience.
Most of the corporate media are (sometimes ludicrously) optimistic, the other polarity. I read both.
Most of the corporate media are (sometimes ludicrously) optimistic, the other polarity. I read both.
> Most of the corporate media are (sometimes ludicrously) optimistic, the other polarity. I read both.
Unfortunately being wrong on the internet is now becoming long-term grounds to be censored and excluded from mainstream society's systems.
Its quite sad really and I don't know what the solution is.
One thing that I DO know is that the solution isn't coming from the government. They are terrible at things. Their job should largely be relegated to protecting freedoms and security.
This 230 stuff is mostly probably going to backfire and create a less free internet. We don't need more lawyers and more government intervention to internet communication.
I do know we have many thousands of people working on solutions to things like Reddit (and Cloudflares) hyper-sensitive long-ago-crosed-the-line censorship, even if censorship is probably a poor world for it given the historical baggage.
Although this is the internet and even sights like T_D were almost entirely replaced on a site without Reddit's regulation and controls (a far worse situation in many's eyes) welll before it was banned on Reddit. It's thriving on a domain name I won't mention here.
Same with infowars and 8chan, they both quickly found new homes on new places.
But there censoring on any major platform and being related to fringe online communities being fringe DDOS protection services and aononimizers (who yes do still get heavily advertised and recruited on Reddit and redirected to these new unmoderated sites, so their censorship policies were always destined to fail).
I'm more concern about operating in the real world (VISA/Mastercard, Patreon, acess to advertising monopoly networks like adwords/adsense, etc), less so the online communities where discourse it happening. Reddit's censorship problem will eventually be solved on a wider/easier scale once the engineering work has been put into it.
It's probably one of the biggest problem of our current era for those of us who understand the importance of "outlaw thinking", free expression, and those who know the history of how these tools of control are almost always abused and riddled with false positives. The history of those who went against the grain (even if that grain is terribly wrong, wrong things have plenty of other ways to kill off than censorship).
Unfortunately being wrong on the internet is now becoming long-term grounds to be censored and excluded from mainstream society's systems.
Its quite sad really and I don't know what the solution is.
One thing that I DO know is that the solution isn't coming from the government. They are terrible at things. Their job should largely be relegated to protecting freedoms and security.
This 230 stuff is mostly probably going to backfire and create a less free internet. We don't need more lawyers and more government intervention to internet communication.
I do know we have many thousands of people working on solutions to things like Reddit (and Cloudflares) hyper-sensitive long-ago-crosed-the-line censorship, even if censorship is probably a poor world for it given the historical baggage.
Although this is the internet and even sights like T_D were almost entirely replaced on a site without Reddit's regulation and controls (a far worse situation in many's eyes) welll before it was banned on Reddit. It's thriving on a domain name I won't mention here.
Same with infowars and 8chan, they both quickly found new homes on new places.
But there censoring on any major platform and being related to fringe online communities being fringe DDOS protection services and aononimizers (who yes do still get heavily advertised and recruited on Reddit and redirected to these new unmoderated sites, so their censorship policies were always destined to fail).
I'm more concern about operating in the real world (VISA/Mastercard, Patreon, acess to advertising monopoly networks like adwords/adsense, etc), less so the online communities where discourse it happening. Reddit's censorship problem will eventually be solved on a wider/easier scale once the engineering work has been put into it.
It's probably one of the biggest problem of our current era for those of us who understand the importance of "outlaw thinking", free expression, and those who know the history of how these tools of control are almost always abused and riddled with false positives. The history of those who went against the grain (even if that grain is terribly wrong, wrong things have plenty of other ways to kill off than censorship).
That's a quote from Fight Club and more of a joke than anything, IIRC.
Fight Club, though, was just fancying up and decontextualizing the first sentence of Milton (EDIT: John Maynard, nor Milton) Keynes famous quote: "In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if, in tempestuous seasons, they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."
I would be very surprised if a financial news outlet choosing the Fight Club quote did so at random and not specifically because of its predecessor.
I would be very surprised if a financial news outlet choosing the Fight Club quote did so at random and not specifically because of its predecessor.
Well, if we're going to play the X is really just modified Y game, we might as well go back to the original.
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
- Ecclesiastes, 300 B.C.E.
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
- Ecclesiastes, 300 B.C.E.
King James Version truly is the worst translation you can find of the bible.
Most of the articles are written by 'Tyler Durden', part of the 'fight club' philosophy joke.
Right, so I think looking for a deeper philosophy in the choice of name and tagline is a bit futile. "Tyler Durden" used to be the cool pseudonym to use online circa 2005.
Nobody said it was deep. Just that it reflects their attitude.
They obviously chose it because it fits their worldview. Their lack of originality is beyond the point.
You've really got to be careful with this sort of thing. This is how Rush Limbaugh got into otherwise sane people's hearts and minds: he explained how the legislative process worked in accessible language.
That's a very interesting point. (I stopped listening to Limbaugh ~ 1994.) I collect books on policy making. I'll look for Limbaugh's explainers. But should you have links handy, I'll be your best friend (duration unspecified).
> As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions.
No question ZeroHedge is excessively pessimistic, but that saying is silly. The US has been having recessions almost like clockwork once every 10 years since 1950 [0].
Saying "a recession is incoming!" is pretty much trivially true. It is always very likely there will be a recession in the next 10 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...
No question ZeroHedge is excessively pessimistic, but that saying is silly. The US has been having recessions almost like clockwork once every 10 years since 1950 [0].
Saying "a recession is incoming!" is pretty much trivially true. It is always very likely there will be a recession in the next 10 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...
> The US has been having recessions almost like clockwork once every 10 years since 1950
Your standards for "clockwork" regularity seem to be quite low. Your own source offered to support that claim shows almost double that frequency from 1950-1990, and a maximum interval of 10 years, 8 months over the whole period. So it is neither "like clockwork" over that period (the frequency has on average dropped over the period, but the intervals are highly variable from one to the next), and not averaging anything like 10 years.
Your standards for "clockwork" regularity seem to be quite low. Your own source offered to support that claim shows almost double that frequency from 1950-1990, and a maximum interval of 10 years, 8 months over the whole period. So it is neither "like clockwork" over that period (the frequency has on average dropped over the period, but the intervals are highly variable from one to the next), and not averaging anything like 10 years.
Gee, well that leaves me debunked. I guess recessions are quite common and ZeroHedge is ... much more reliable than I thought? A scary discovery.
If you are planning your investments around not having a recession about once a decade, I'm unconvinced it will end well for you.
Anyway, the point stands - regularly predicting recessions is a sensible approach, and saying ZeroHedge overpredicts is wrong. The normal financial press are reckless in assuming that recessions are not imminent. Looking 5+ years into the future to assess the present state is prudent.
If you are planning your investments around not having a recession about once a decade, I'm unconvinced it will end well for you.
Anyway, the point stands - regularly predicting recessions is a sensible approach, and saying ZeroHedge overpredicts is wrong. The normal financial press are reckless in assuming that recessions are not imminent. Looking 5+ years into the future to assess the present state is prudent.
> regularly predicting recessions is a sensible approach,
No, its not, because recessions do not occur on a regular pattern. And even if they did, its still possible to predict them much more frequently than they do occur.
> and saying ZeroHedge overpredicts is wrong.
Just doing a quick search, ZeroHedge seems to have predicted a recession, counting only predictions with a one year or shorter forward window, literally every year since the end of the of the Great Recession. In many of those years, they made at least one prediction where the window was effectively negative, as they claimed that the US was already in a recession that just wasn't yet recognized.
So, yes, ZeroHedge significantly overpredicts recessions, as they have predicted not less than 11 of the last 1 recessions.
> The normal financial press are reckless in assuming that recessions are not imminent.
That's a non-sequitur, in any case.
> Looking 5+ years into the future to assess the present state is prudent.
Sure, but if ZeroHedge was consistently predicting a recession within 5 years, they'd still be overpredicting by quite a lot (not if this was 1950-1990, but it isn't), but they are much, much worse than that.
No, its not, because recessions do not occur on a regular pattern. And even if they did, its still possible to predict them much more frequently than they do occur.
> and saying ZeroHedge overpredicts is wrong.
Just doing a quick search, ZeroHedge seems to have predicted a recession, counting only predictions with a one year or shorter forward window, literally every year since the end of the of the Great Recession. In many of those years, they made at least one prediction where the window was effectively negative, as they claimed that the US was already in a recession that just wasn't yet recognized.
So, yes, ZeroHedge significantly overpredicts recessions, as they have predicted not less than 11 of the last 1 recessions.
> The normal financial press are reckless in assuming that recessions are not imminent.
That's a non-sequitur, in any case.
> Looking 5+ years into the future to assess the present state is prudent.
Sure, but if ZeroHedge was consistently predicting a recession within 5 years, they'd still be overpredicting by quite a lot (not if this was 1950-1990, but it isn't), but they are much, much worse than that.
No, I don't think you will come out ahead in your investments by trying to predict recessions. Timing the market almost always ends badly in the long term. The best way to come out ahead is to plan based on very long term market trends which include the recessions and stick to your plan with the understanding that there will be recessions, you just don't know when they will start and when they will end.
I'm quite certain if someone simulated trading based on predicted recessions on ZH, you would end up well below market returns.
I'm quite certain if someone simulated trading based on predicted recessions on ZH, you would end up well below market returns.
> As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions.
I wonder if that's actually true.
I wonder if that's actually true.
> > As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions.
> I wonder if that's actually true.
Its not, as ZH was founded during the Great Recession, and there's only been one since.
That's at least 10 less than they've predicted, though, so the quote, while not literally true, understates the degree to which ZH overpredicts recessions.
> I wonder if that's actually true.
Its not, as ZH was founded during the Great Recession, and there's only been one since.
That's at least 10 less than they've predicted, though, so the quote, while not literally true, understates the degree to which ZH overpredicts recessions.
They are, but when the FED keeps re-inflating bubbles and manipulating the markets, all conventional economic processes that they were using as sentinels were also getting disrupted.
> They are, but...
But nothing. In short, the claim of 'scarily accurate' is not true. There may be underlying reasons that their accuracy has issues, but their track record up to this point has been highly inaccurate.
But nothing. In short, the claim of 'scarily accurate' is not true. There may be underlying reasons that their accuracy has issues, but their track record up to this point has been highly inaccurate.
[deleted]
Yada yada yada
> Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish'
Section 230 isn't an agreement, it's a section of the Communication Decency Act.[1] There is no prohibition on the publisher "meddling", or moderating. Section 230 was specifically carved out to encourage voluntary content moderation on the nascent internet.
It states that hosting or republishing someone else's speech does not make you the speaker, even if you moderate. Which is to say that just because Twitter locks down accounts or stops a link from being shared, they still are not the Speaker (legally) of anything their users post. That's it, that basically the whole thing.
[1]https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Section 230 isn't an agreement, it's a section of the Communication Decency Act.[1] There is no prohibition on the publisher "meddling", or moderating. Section 230 was specifically carved out to encourage voluntary content moderation on the nascent internet.
It states that hosting or republishing someone else's speech does not make you the speaker, even if you moderate. Which is to say that just because Twitter locks down accounts or stops a link from being shared, they still are not the Speaker (legally) of anything their users post. That's it, that basically the whole thing.
[1]https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
> Separately I view Twitter as breaking section 230 free speech regulatory agreements in meddling with what they 'publish'
Section 230 was overtly adopted so that platforms would make efforts to censor content that they found to be objectionable; there are no "free speech regulatory agreements" associated with it.
It is the only surviving part of a law whose sole and entire purpose was internet censorship, the rest of which was struck down for violating Free Speech protections.
Section 230 was overtly adopted so that platforms would make efforts to censor content that they found to be objectionable; there are no "free speech regulatory agreements" associated with it.
It is the only surviving part of a law whose sole and entire purpose was internet censorship, the rest of which was struck down for violating Free Speech protections.
When people say "violating section 230," rather than correcting them it's more instructive to understand what they're trying to communicate.
Usually it seems to be they're really saying "this shows section 230 is a bad idea."
If we could move past the reflexive "well actually" there's a real issue people feel needs to be addressed.
Usually it seems to be they're really saying "this shows section 230 is a bad idea."
If we could move past the reflexive "well actually" there's a real issue people feel needs to be addressed.
It does reveal that there's an issue that bothers people, but I'm not sure it needs to be addressed beyond explaining that Section 230--or something just like it--is what gives us the free and open internet we enjoy today.
Without it, there is likely no Hacker News, nor any other social media.
Without it, there is likely no Hacker News, nor any other social media.
There certainly are more fine-grained solutions possible.
My believe is that if this is forced into a take it or leave it scenario, we're not going to like the outcome.
My believe is that if this is forced into a take it or leave it scenario, we're not going to like the outcome.
Nobody will, because changes to Section 230 will likely kill all social media.
Which, come to think of it, might be a net gain to society overall. Hard to say.
Which, come to think of it, might be a net gain to society overall. Hard to say.
[deleted]
>When people say "violating section 230," rather than correcting them it's more instructive to understand what they're trying to communicate.
I think the first priority is to ensure that the poster's misinformation (i.e., telling people that 230 says/does something it is explicitly designed not to do) does not propagate through this medium. It's a public forum, not a conversation with just the poster.
Then, if possible, you can engage with their disfunction. But given the weaponized role of misinformation today that's the first item in the checklist to be addressed.
I think the first priority is to ensure that the poster's misinformation (i.e., telling people that 230 says/does something it is explicitly designed not to do) does not propagate through this medium. It's a public forum, not a conversation with just the poster.
Then, if possible, you can engage with their disfunction. But given the weaponized role of misinformation today that's the first item in the checklist to be addressed.
I really do disagree. I think it's far more important to understand and address the actual concern. Someone is going to. It would be far better if it was someone who understands what is at stake.
From my viewpoint, it's very likely Section 230 will be modified. Once that action is underway, you'll be well behind the curve if you're just starting to grasp what people want. Others will have taken that time and effort and figured out how to mold it to their own ends, and the momentum will be building.
From my viewpoint, it's very likely Section 230 will be modified. Once that action is underway, you'll be well behind the curve if you're just starting to grasp what people want. Others will have taken that time and effort and figured out how to mold it to their own ends, and the momentum will be building.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Twitter (and FB) have crossed the rubicon in editorializing other people's posts with 'fact checks' (sic), shadow bans and public bans.
Practically the opposite of the free speech maxim 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and alarmingly close to totalitarian use of their publishing power.
Twitter (and FB) have crossed the rubicon in editorializing other people's posts with 'fact checks' (sic), shadow bans and public bans.
Practically the opposite of the free speech maxim 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and alarmingly close to totalitarian use of their publishing power.
Your link supports GP's assertion. There is no rubicon to be crossed. Both the letter and the intent of Section 230 is to allow Twitter and Facebook to moderate however they wish. (Although the fact checks are authored by them, and therefore don't fall under Section 230; Twitter would be liable if they were shown to be defamatory).
Fact checks on Facebook at least aren't authored by them. They come from third party "fact checkers" of dubious legitimacy.
Nothing about section 230 says that platforms have to publish what people say, or that they are unable to moderate or editorialize the content:
>This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.
>This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.
Hall's quote from "The Friends of Voltaire" describes Voltaire's views concerning the revoking of Helvétius's right to publish De l'esprit, its ban in Rome, and more. By my reading, Hall doesn't imply that Voltaire meant to also 'defend to the death' the right for Helvétius to force a given company to publish his book - something which wasn't needed as it was quickly re-published across Europe.
Caesar has crossed this Rubicon so many times there's a 4-lane highway with a Waffle House at the rest stop. Forum moderators have been exercising their right of free association for a long time.
Why would Twitter (and FB) agree to be regulated as common carrier, with limited ability to discriminate in its service to the general public? What should it/they get in exchange?
Caesar has crossed this Rubicon so many times there's a 4-lane highway with a Waffle House at the rest stop. Forum moderators have been exercising their right of free association for a long time.
Why would Twitter (and FB) agree to be regulated as common carrier, with limited ability to discriminate in its service to the general public? What should it/they get in exchange?
Can you say more about how this violates 230? That wasn’t my understanding of how the law works, but I could be wrong.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
'Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish'.
'Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish'.
Section 230 also says:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
With that it seems reasonable to read Section 230 as "you don't have to proactively moderate, and any good faith moderation you do doesn't break that protection".
Regardless of whether or not this is the right thing for society, it seems that Facebook and Twitter are well within the bounds of section 230 to do some moderation without losing the protection of section 230.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
With that it seems reasonable to read Section 230 as "you don't have to proactively moderate, and any good faith moderation you do doesn't break that protection".
Regardless of whether or not this is the right thing for society, it seems that Facebook and Twitter are well within the bounds of section 230 to do some moderation without losing the protection of section 230.
It seems "Otherwise objectionable" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. The intent seems pretty clearly "censorship of stuff that violates 1990s era morality is OK". Extrapolating to that to arbitrary censorship of ordinary political views isn't what Congress meant with this clause, and presumably adjusting Section 230 to tighten or simply remove "otherwise objectionable" would mean they could no longer do moderation for political reasons without losing that protection.
That doesn't explain what "agreements" you think twitter is "breaking". There's a lot of disinformation about 230 floating around, but as the EFF page points out, it's a broad protection. It isn't at all contingent on them behaving like a common carrier.
Section 230 has been a political and legal football all year.
Example for Twitter editorializing and cancelling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015...
Ammending S230 Bezos/WashPo
'...new legislation would target Section 230, a decades-old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts, photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their users. The proposal would pave the way for steep sanctions on major online platforms if they don’t act to remove a range of illicit content, from child exploitation to terrorism, according to Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday.
The agency also seeks to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions and more consistent in their enforcement of them, according to a report the department released Wednesday. The move might offer the U.S. government a new avenue to probe and punish companies over allegations of political bias'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-bar...
Example for Twitter editorializing and cancelling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015...
Ammending S230 Bezos/WashPo
'...new legislation would target Section 230, a decades-old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts, photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their users. The proposal would pave the way for steep sanctions on major online platforms if they don’t act to remove a range of illicit content, from child exploitation to terrorism, according to Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday.
The agency also seeks to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions and more consistent in their enforcement of them, according to a report the department released Wednesday. The move might offer the U.S. government a new avenue to probe and punish companies over allegations of political bias'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-bar...
Twitter's actions prompting legislators to be interested in modifying section 230 is different than Twitter not acting in accordance with section 230. Section 230 explicitly allows them to moderate, and says that they do not lose their protections just because they do some moderation.
> 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking'
The slightly less cynical way I think of this is that finance will directly be impacted vs non-finance so news targetted at them is more helpful, or at least not actively harming.
In the financial independence community most articles on mainstream sites are considered jokes or to have insufficient detail to actually improve your finances
A good non-money example: If you get a chronic disease, reading blogs and forums by people who have the disease is going to me more helpful than whatever a staff writer can do in 2 hours of research
The slightly less cynical way I think of this is that finance will directly be impacted vs non-finance so news targetted at them is more helpful, or at least not actively harming.
In the financial independence community most articles on mainstream sites are considered jokes or to have insufficient detail to actually improve your finances
A good non-money example: If you get a chronic disease, reading blogs and forums by people who have the disease is going to me more helpful than whatever a staff writer can do in 2 hours of research
What is one example of ZH’s accuracy?
ZeroHedge was one of the first outlets to cover Coronavirus and raise the alarm about it.
follow this story posted on ZH today over the next few days
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/youll-bury-everyone-invo...
It may be incorrect &/or partisan but you are likely to read these sort of revelations on ZH first for better or worse.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/youll-bury-everyone-invo...
It may be incorrect &/or partisan but you are likely to read these sort of revelations on ZH first for better or worse.
Did you read that link you sent me? It’s a collection of tweets and with a paragraph about QAnon at the end
Of course. I think the Bobulinski revelations will be a huge news story eventually. Right now the corporate media are doing their best to ignore it. It's not just 'a collection of tweets with a paragraph about QAnon at the end'. Did you actually read it?
I miss when ZH was an investment blog.
There's a basic economic characteristic I think fringe media gets right: the cost for them being wrong is almost zero, and the benefit of being right first puts them on par with news orgs with hundreds of millions in budget. If you are a reader playing the fast-story slot machine game, it's just noise until you jackpot. The big question is what is the effect of all that noise over time, and what does it make you deaf to?
If the social platforms were just imposing costs on being wrong that would almost be a service, but I get the impression from all the ban stories that they're staffed mostly by people who aren't equipped to be that judicious. The platforms have thrown down their cards and are all in on this election cycle, and by showing what appears to be partisan recklessness, it's going to cost them moral high ground they might have had before all this.
The good news is the people reading this forum can build a platform killer in 6-8months, and there's going to be a bunch of balance sheet cash on the sidelines looking for startups to fund. These social platform companies are all just another Friendster waiting to happen.
If the social platforms were just imposing costs on being wrong that would almost be a service, but I get the impression from all the ban stories that they're staffed mostly by people who aren't equipped to be that judicious. The platforms have thrown down their cards and are all in on this election cycle, and by showing what appears to be partisan recklessness, it's going to cost them moral high ground they might have had before all this.
The good news is the people reading this forum can build a platform killer in 6-8months, and there's going to be a bunch of balance sheet cash on the sidelines looking for startups to fund. These social platform companies are all just another Friendster waiting to happen.
>If the social platforms were just imposing costs on being wrong that would almost be a service, but I get the impression from all the ban stories that they're staffed mostly by people who aren't equipped to be that judicious
The latter sounds like an "intent" argument, that imposing the costs has a quality factor that I'd say just doesn't (or doesn't have to) exist.
The latter sounds like an "intent" argument, that imposing the costs has a quality factor that I'd say just doesn't (or doesn't have to) exist.
>I personally find lower time-to-publish immensely valuable
I am curious why this is so valuable to you. In my personal life a delay of hours in the news cycle would have no effect. How does it generate value for you?
I am curious why this is so valuable to you. In my personal life a delay of hours in the news cycle would have no effect. How does it generate value for you?
This is a really interesting thread to read for me. I remember when I was in school as a dumb teenager watching the Zeitgeist video that was going around then, it’s a bunch of dumb conspiracy theories which if I watched now I’d probably peg as blatantly antisemitic as those things tend to be.
Anyway I mention that because during that time I remember always leaning on weird ZeroHedge articles to prove things in dumb arguments. I don’t remember the specifics but it stuck with me enough to completely blacklist ZH when I realised how dumb I was being.
It sounds like I probably should take a look at it from a fresh perspective and without that baggage, because it’s obviously not what I remember based on these comments.
Anyway I mention that because during that time I remember always leaning on weird ZeroHedge articles to prove things in dumb arguments. I don’t remember the specifics but it stuck with me enough to completely blacklist ZH when I realised how dumb I was being.
It sounds like I probably should take a look at it from a fresh perspective and without that baggage, because it’s obviously not what I remember based on these comments.
Not-so-fun fact: according to the mods on /r/conservative, submissions from zerohedge are currently banned site-wide.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/jhksrq/do_not...
It seems to check out: https://old.reddit.com/domain/zerohedge.com/new/
https://old.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/jhksrq/do_not...
It seems to check out: https://old.reddit.com/domain/zerohedge.com/new/
That post is referring to a Hunter Biden revenge porn sex tape. Are other non-anonymous performer) revenge porn sex tapes posted on reddit?
That post is referring to the Hunter Biden situation, but the comment I linked to talks about total bans on certain domains which posted about Hunter Biden, including articles which have nothing to do with Hunter Biden. The sites are banned outright from reddit at the moment.
Check the second link -- there hasn't been a submission from zerohedge on any subreddit in over 48 hours.
Check the second link -- there hasn't been a submission from zerohedge on any subreddit in over 48 hours.
Low time to publish has its place, but not if it's presented as truth.
>I prefer to assess the accuracy of news stories myself (usually considering the original source and how aligned their interests are with the published information)
There's your problem.
It's one thing to want the raw data out there if you want it, and more importantly, for others who are smarter than you to analyze it. Same principle with publishing methods and analysis of a scientific paper, or publishing source code you'll never look at to github: The fact that others can see it is important in itself.
That said, your comment borders too close to the Trumpian "experts know nothing, we can't trust the fourth estate" mentality. Actually, Trumpians don't know the term 'fourth estate'. Anyway. There is value in having institutions of trust investigate events and curate the story.
There's your problem.
It's one thing to want the raw data out there if you want it, and more importantly, for others who are smarter than you to analyze it. Same principle with publishing methods and analysis of a scientific paper, or publishing source code you'll never look at to github: The fact that others can see it is important in itself.
That said, your comment borders too close to the Trumpian "experts know nothing, we can't trust the fourth estate" mentality. Actually, Trumpians don't know the term 'fourth estate'. Anyway. There is value in having institutions of trust investigate events and curate the story.
ZH is still trying to disprove the Russian links to various novichok poisonings. They don't seem to realise that the rest of the world has kind of forgotten about it.
It's definitely got some Russian backing, but there are occasionally some quite good finance-related articles on it too. Just avoid the comment section!
It's definitely got some Russian backing, but there are occasionally some quite good finance-related articles on it too. Just avoid the comment section!
> because they're not actually trustworthy to me
Mainstream US media are not trustworthy, period. Repeated cases of going beyond bias and into simply parroting government or political party claims with no evidentiary basis, merely for influencing public opinion one way or another. Often, one would guess, while fully knowing the claims are baseless. The omission of coverage of various issues also contributes to the 'trust-unworthiness'.
Mainstream US media are not trustworthy, period. Repeated cases of going beyond bias and into simply parroting government or political party claims with no evidentiary basis, merely for influencing public opinion one way or another. Often, one would guess, while fully knowing the claims are baseless. The omission of coverage of various issues also contributes to the 'trust-unworthiness'.
It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false.
Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you trust people to vote but don't trust them with the unfiltered information so they can inform themselves without outside intervention?
Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you trust people to vote but don't trust them with the unfiltered information so they can inform themselves without outside intervention?
The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing. The common person primarily votes based solely on a historical allegiance to a political party (be it individually formed or inherited) with about 75% of America essentially being unmovable D or R safe votes.
Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area where I think it's pretty clear the government has failed in a big way - twitter + FB shouldn't be news platforms, the dumb news aggregators (like google news) do a pretty good job of being dumb platforms, but those commentary platforms are being run by private entities that can "censor" speech as they like depending on how it benefits or harms their platform. America is in a bit of a crisis right now since the extreme partisan divide has driven the real media (print, TV) to actually split into mutually disproving and incompatible bubbles. On election night one half of the country is going to be absolutely astounded since everything they consumed said their candidate was going to win.
I'm not certain what the solution is but some moderation is required to prevent the apparent acceptance of some pretty hateful views along with conspiracy theories. The Internet introduced clickbait to the world in a manner it never previously conceived of - tabloids have been around for ever but never gotten serious consideration - suddenly major political figures are embracing and re-packaging tabloid headlines and it's a bit of a crisis of information for our society.
Censorship is a hard question and I think we do need to have better laws promoting free access to material (even "libelous" material) but this is also an area where I think it's pretty clear the government has failed in a big way - twitter + FB shouldn't be news platforms, the dumb news aggregators (like google news) do a pretty good job of being dumb platforms, but those commentary platforms are being run by private entities that can "censor" speech as they like depending on how it benefits or harms their platform. America is in a bit of a crisis right now since the extreme partisan divide has driven the real media (print, TV) to actually split into mutually disproving and incompatible bubbles. On election night one half of the country is going to be absolutely astounded since everything they consumed said their candidate was going to win.
I'm not certain what the solution is but some moderation is required to prevent the apparent acceptance of some pretty hateful views along with conspiracy theories. The Internet introduced clickbait to the world in a manner it never previously conceived of - tabloids have been around for ever but never gotten serious consideration - suddenly major political figures are embracing and re-packaging tabloid headlines and it's a bit of a crisis of information for our society.
RealClearPolitics makes a point of presenting articles on both sides of the spectrum and has grown tremendously.
I am cautiously optimistic that there are a lot, lot, lot of people (like myself) that are interested in trying to balance their views, and make a point of reading both sides - especially when a headline is sensational.
I don't think Google news is as balanced as RCP, but it sure beats just reading CNN or Fox!
I am cautiously optimistic that there are a lot, lot, lot of people (like myself) that are interested in trying to balance their views, and make a point of reading both sides - especially when a headline is sensational.
I don't think Google news is as balanced as RCP, but it sure beats just reading CNN or Fox!
I think RealClearPolitics is a great example of solid reporting - I avoided it (along with the intercept and 538 which is weirdly now sort of a news site) in the example above since I'm not certain how sustainable they are in the long run - they may exist because the internet being here means some pretty nice balanced news sources are eventually bound to appear... but corporations have a way of eating media sources that don't say nice things about them. I do really hope that RCP and a lot of the other independent media (even the highly left-slanted ones like TYT) manage to survive and thrive - but I think aggregated news is a thing that has value and I think that maybe highly opinionated commentary of news (like you'd see on twitter/facebook) also has value since it allows for more room for advocacy of ideas.
RCP is "diverse" compared to CNN or Fox offering opinions from center (mayyybe center -left) Bloomberg/Politico/NYMag to far right (Federalist), with a clear Right bias. Their founding mission to provide diversity to balance the Liberal Mainstream Media.
They have nothing Left like Mother Jones or Jacobin.
The farthest left they go is in linking to Biden endorsements, but Biden is a centrist establish Democrat who has been endorsed by most of the pre-2016 Republican party.
It's obvious from the list of sources: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The farthest left they go is in linking to Biden endorsements, but Biden is a centrist establish Democrat who has been endorsed by most of the pre-2016 Republican party.
It's obvious from the list of sources: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
> The common person primarily votes based solely on a historical allegiance to a political party (be it individually formed or inherited) with about 75% of America essentially being unmovable D or R safe votes.
This is one of those statements that sounds bad on the surface but is actually totally reasonable and has nothing to do with some trope about the "uninformed masses" or whatever. Locally the individual matters a lot more but at the national level voting histories show that the party dominates.
People have "disqualifying issues." And this is totally rational. Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay. And if you're pro-life then voting D is unpalatable. These kinds of polarizing issues very nearly define the party line. So yeah, if you go the polls in Nov and don't know if you're voting D or R (nationally) then you're probably crazy uninformed.
The actual decision making happens during the primaries where people suddenly have an entire group of people who aren't immediately disqualified and the internal discussion gets a lot more nuanced.
This is one of those statements that sounds bad on the surface but is actually totally reasonable and has nothing to do with some trope about the "uninformed masses" or whatever. Locally the individual matters a lot more but at the national level voting histories show that the party dominates.
People have "disqualifying issues." And this is totally rational. Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay. And if you're pro-life then voting D is unpalatable. These kinds of polarizing issues very nearly define the party line. So yeah, if you go the polls in Nov and don't know if you're voting D or R (nationally) then you're probably crazy uninformed.
The actual decision making happens during the primaries where people suddenly have an entire group of people who aren't immediately disqualified and the internal discussion gets a lot more nuanced.
> Being black and voting R is nuts -- same if you're gay.
I'm not sure if its objectively "nuts" but almost 25% of LGBT voters supported Romney over Obama. That's accounting for the fact that openly LGBT voters are much younger than other voters: twice as likely to be 18-34 and half as likely to be 55+. Median age is about 35, versus 50 for the overall population. Romney won 37% of folks 18-29 and 51% of folks 45-64. There are too many gay republicans to call them all "nuts."
I'm not sure if its objectively "nuts" but almost 25% of LGBT voters supported Romney over Obama. That's accounting for the fact that openly LGBT voters are much younger than other voters: twice as likely to be 18-34 and half as likely to be 55+. Median age is about 35, versus 50 for the overall population. Romney won 37% of folks 18-29 and 51% of folks 45-64. There are too many gay republicans to call them all "nuts."
Obviously all people have different kinds of policy opinions, and the "R" and "D" buckets are way too coarse to describe everyone. Someone who is gay can just as easily be a fiscal conservative (for example) as someone who is straight.
But what I can't understand is how someone -- even if they agree with most of their chosen party's platform -- could vote for a party whose leadership largely wants to erase them. I just don't understand someone who is gay voting for people who believe that their sexual orientation is a "choice", many also believing that it's a "sin" that should be forcibly "re-educated" out.
Certainly calling them "nuts" is dismissive, disrespectful, and doesn't help us understand what's going on, but... really, I do not at all understand what's going on.
But what I can't understand is how someone -- even if they agree with most of their chosen party's platform -- could vote for a party whose leadership largely wants to erase them. I just don't understand someone who is gay voting for people who believe that their sexual orientation is a "choice", many also believing that it's a "sin" that should be forcibly "re-educated" out.
Certainly calling them "nuts" is dismissive, disrespectful, and doesn't help us understand what's going on, but... really, I do not at all understand what's going on.
As someone on the D side of things I'm generally in the same camp as you opinion-wise but not all republicans are pray-away-the-gay crazy - that may be Pence's particular brand but Romney ended up legalizing civil unions while governor of MA. Partisan politics like to paint things as black and white but they're a lot more grey than that.
Similarly R-side folks might believe that all D-folks are Trotskyists while that's a rather rare stance to have - certainly the D-side is more towards interventionalism - but nobody with serious power on the D end of things (not even bernie) is advocating for a planned economy.
I feel very strongly about moving towards proportional representation for the house over FPTP slotting. I think the extremism in the current political climate is largely fueled by this us vs. them choice - get us better representation so we can all see that Trotskyists pull one or two house reps nation-wide and slice off of the Dems at large... And watch the white-supremists and westboro baptist church folks get kicked out of the GOP at large and end up with a seat or two themselves. These are fringe groups[1]...
Our current voting system allows negative campaign ads to be just as effective as positive ones - knocking your opponent down 3 pts is the same as raising yourself 3 pts... but it's far easier to craft negative campaign ads so the electorate is constantly submerged in hateful vitriol. We need election reform so we can stop viewing each other as the enemy.
1. Please note, the current administration has actually started embracing these groups more, but this is a new development and should be a clear signal that the country is in trouble.
Similarly R-side folks might believe that all D-folks are Trotskyists while that's a rather rare stance to have - certainly the D-side is more towards interventionalism - but nobody with serious power on the D end of things (not even bernie) is advocating for a planned economy.
I feel very strongly about moving towards proportional representation for the house over FPTP slotting. I think the extremism in the current political climate is largely fueled by this us vs. them choice - get us better representation so we can all see that Trotskyists pull one or two house reps nation-wide and slice off of the Dems at large... And watch the white-supremists and westboro baptist church folks get kicked out of the GOP at large and end up with a seat or two themselves. These are fringe groups[1]...
Our current voting system allows negative campaign ads to be just as effective as positive ones - knocking your opponent down 3 pts is the same as raising yourself 3 pts... but it's far easier to craft negative campaign ads so the electorate is constantly submerged in hateful vitriol. We need election reform so we can stop viewing each other as the enemy.
1. Please note, the current administration has actually started embracing these groups more, but this is a new development and should be a clear signal that the country is in trouble.
I think your image of Republican Party messaging is wildly out of sync with how Republican voters see it. It’s closer to where religious faction of the party has been in early 2000s, but it hardly resembles their position today. I do not find it particularly surprising, given that one simply cannot get an accurate view of it without explicitly looking for it: you won’t get it in CNN or MSNBC, and most non-Republicans would never stoop so low to actually watch the “partisan hacks” on Fox.
I’m not gay, so I’ll offer an analogy. I’m a brown guy with a beard from a Muslim country and with a Muslim last name. I found my friends’ (sincere) concern about Trump’s campaign rhetoric to be odd, because I didn’t find it alarming myself. (Apparently 30% of Muslims polled did not.) I thought it was distasteful and counterproductive—pissing away a demographic George W. Bush won in 2000–but I felt all the rhetoric on the left about concentration camps was way overblown. I didn’t support Trump for other reasons, but the mere presence of some xenophobes in the party wouldn’t keep me out of it. I care about my safety, but I don’t really care if other people think we should have fewer Muslim immigrants. (Also, being from a Muslim country I know that the security issues aren’t totally manufactured.)
Now, what do you mean by “erase?” Republicans don’t want to put gay people in concentration camps and forcibly re-educate them. But it has taken them longer to come around to accepting gay people than Democrats for predictable reasons that gay Republicans are presumably willing to put up with. Conservatism by its nature values the traditional family because they believe it is beneficial for society. The long-standing belief that being gay was a “lifestyle” along with 1970s rhetoric about disrupting the traditional family was predictably alarming. For liberals who had already abandoned the idea that society as a whole should pressure people to get married and have 2.1 kids, acceptance of same-sex relationships that wouldn’t necessarily follow the traditional path came much more easily. But attitudes towards same-sex relationships and marriage have evolved rapidly even among conservatives. In 1978, few people accepted that being gay was genetic. Today, 50% believe that. Acceptance of gay marriage very closely tracks rising understanding that being gay is innate. (Republicans aren’t as far along as Democrats in internalizing that. But even among Democrats only 61% believe that being gay is fully innate, so it’s not like gay Democrats can get totally away from such beliefs either: https://news.gallup.com/poll/234941/say-nature-nurture-expla....) Moreover, in this past decade studies have revealed that huge percentages of gay couples are already raising kids together. In the last decade, an image of gay people as being born that way, and being in committed relationships and raising kids no different than anyone else, has appeared. And it has enabled the reconciliation of conservatism and same-sex relationships to the point that half of Republicans already support same-sex marriage.
Gay Republicans presumably understand this thought process and are willing to work through it and let the process play out. Many, even agree with the general principle of social conservatism, even if they disagree about the specific case. It’s worth noting that gay conservatives played an important role in Obergefell. See: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-vot...
> In 1989, most Americans had never even heard of gay marriage, and certainly couldn’t conceive that it would one day be legalized by popular vote. That year, Andrew Sullivan wrote a landmark essay for the New Republic, “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage.” Sullivan’s essay is one of the most important magazine articles of recent decades. His argument, which he went on to elaborate in his books Virtually Normal and Same-Sex Marriage and in later essays, is that marriage for gays would “foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.” Sullivan’s conservative case would eventually become the intellectual and moral foundation of the campaigns to legalize gay marriage. Sullivan gave Slate permission to reprint his New Republic essay in full.
Now, what do you mean by “erase?” Republicans don’t want to put gay people in concentration camps and forcibly re-educate them. But it has taken them longer to come around to accepting gay people than Democrats for predictable reasons that gay Republicans are presumably willing to put up with. Conservatism by its nature values the traditional family because they believe it is beneficial for society. The long-standing belief that being gay was a “lifestyle” along with 1970s rhetoric about disrupting the traditional family was predictably alarming. For liberals who had already abandoned the idea that society as a whole should pressure people to get married and have 2.1 kids, acceptance of same-sex relationships that wouldn’t necessarily follow the traditional path came much more easily. But attitudes towards same-sex relationships and marriage have evolved rapidly even among conservatives. In 1978, few people accepted that being gay was genetic. Today, 50% believe that. Acceptance of gay marriage very closely tracks rising understanding that being gay is innate. (Republicans aren’t as far along as Democrats in internalizing that. But even among Democrats only 61% believe that being gay is fully innate, so it’s not like gay Democrats can get totally away from such beliefs either: https://news.gallup.com/poll/234941/say-nature-nurture-expla....) Moreover, in this past decade studies have revealed that huge percentages of gay couples are already raising kids together. In the last decade, an image of gay people as being born that way, and being in committed relationships and raising kids no different than anyone else, has appeared. And it has enabled the reconciliation of conservatism and same-sex relationships to the point that half of Republicans already support same-sex marriage.
Gay Republicans presumably understand this thought process and are willing to work through it and let the process play out. Many, even agree with the general principle of social conservatism, even if they disagree about the specific case. It’s worth noting that gay conservatives played an important role in Obergefell. See: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-vot...
> In 1989, most Americans had never even heard of gay marriage, and certainly couldn’t conceive that it would one day be legalized by popular vote. That year, Andrew Sullivan wrote a landmark essay for the New Republic, “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage.” Sullivan’s essay is one of the most important magazine articles of recent decades. His argument, which he went on to elaborate in his books Virtually Normal and Same-Sex Marriage and in later essays, is that marriage for gays would “foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.” Sullivan’s conservative case would eventually become the intellectual and moral foundation of the campaigns to legalize gay marriage. Sullivan gave Slate permission to reprint his New Republic essay in full.
This Andrew Sullivan? "In 2003, he wrote he was no longer able to support the American conservative movement, as he was disaffected with the Republican Party's continued rightward shift on social issues during the George W. Bush era"
Sullivan identifies as a conservative and sometimes a Republican: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Brooks.t.htm...
> “The conservatism I grew up around” Sullivan writes on the second page of the book, “was a combination of lower taxes, less government spending, freer trade, freer markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility and a strong anti-Communist foreign policy.” His heroes were Thatcher, Reagan, Solzhenitsyn, Havel, Hayek and Orwell.
Sullivan is ideologically similar to, and a fan of, Anthony Kennedy, who was a life-long Republican: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-and-... (noting Kennedy’s “pragmatic libertarianism — his belief in limited government, pluralism, moderation, and social cohesion”).
It’s not really as simple as “Republicans moved too far to the right and he’s a liberal now.” For example, Sullivan is a devout Catholic who thinks Roe was wrong to take the decision on how to regulate abortion out of the hands of voters: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/andrew-sullian-a-way.... (He thinks voters would converge on laws like in France or Germany, allowing abortion up to 12 weeks with limited exemptions after that.)
He supported Bush (and thought Gore tried to steal the 2000 election) and the Iraq war initially. He soured on it later and reeled at Bush’s deficits and fiscal excess, and Bush’s support for the federal marriage amendment. He supported Ron Paul for the Republican primary. He hates Hilary Clinton but begrudgingly supported her against Trump. He is very much against the rise of critical theory and wokeness: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness. On LGBT issues, he thinks “the war has been won” after Gorsuch’s decision in Bostock: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/when-is-it-time-to-c.... In particular, he opposes the Equality Act’s attempts to eliminate religious freedom exemptions.
Circling back to the point: this is why a quarter of gay people identify as Republican (though Trump has been very unpopular). Most people have heterodox political views and don’t fit neatly into any particular camp. And the parties shift over time to capture different blocs so folks who aren’t strong partisans can find themselves shifting around. There’s plenty of people who would support the party of Biden over the party of Trump, but the party of Marco Rubio over the party of Bernie Sanders.
> “The conservatism I grew up around” Sullivan writes on the second page of the book, “was a combination of lower taxes, less government spending, freer trade, freer markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility and a strong anti-Communist foreign policy.” His heroes were Thatcher, Reagan, Solzhenitsyn, Havel, Hayek and Orwell.
Sullivan is ideologically similar to, and a fan of, Anthony Kennedy, who was a life-long Republican: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-and-... (noting Kennedy’s “pragmatic libertarianism — his belief in limited government, pluralism, moderation, and social cohesion”).
It’s not really as simple as “Republicans moved too far to the right and he’s a liberal now.” For example, Sullivan is a devout Catholic who thinks Roe was wrong to take the decision on how to regulate abortion out of the hands of voters: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/andrew-sullian-a-way.... (He thinks voters would converge on laws like in France or Germany, allowing abortion up to 12 weeks with limited exemptions after that.)
He supported Bush (and thought Gore tried to steal the 2000 election) and the Iraq war initially. He soured on it later and reeled at Bush’s deficits and fiscal excess, and Bush’s support for the federal marriage amendment. He supported Ron Paul for the Republican primary. He hates Hilary Clinton but begrudgingly supported her against Trump. He is very much against the rise of critical theory and wokeness: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness. On LGBT issues, he thinks “the war has been won” after Gorsuch’s decision in Bostock: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/when-is-it-time-to-c.... In particular, he opposes the Equality Act’s attempts to eliminate religious freedom exemptions.
Circling back to the point: this is why a quarter of gay people identify as Republican (though Trump has been very unpopular). Most people have heterodox political views and don’t fit neatly into any particular camp. And the parties shift over time to capture different blocs so folks who aren’t strong partisans can find themselves shifting around. There’s plenty of people who would support the party of Biden over the party of Trump, but the party of Marco Rubio over the party of Bernie Sanders.
Here's the problem:
Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve.
The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters in human history. Whether you like it or not, it is a much better state of being for the uninformed to vote, than the alternative.
Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve.
The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters in human history. Whether you like it or not, it is a much better state of being for the uninformed to vote, than the alternative.
I think attributing it to "having the right to be wrong" is overly simplistic and you're missing a big chunk of what the core problem is - when you walk into a voting booth you are allowed to[1] check either the D or the R box. If you've followed a few rounds of elections chances are you've held your nose at least one of the times you've voted. Can you be a member of the GOP that is pretty well convinced that while the conservative courts might overturn Roe vs. Wade that gay marriage is essentially set in stone at this point? I think that's reasonable, I actually think that's pretty correct... No matter how extreme of a Mike Pence we get in office gay marriage is here to stay - if you're taking that as a given then maybe you're concerned about gun rights or the economy of one of a plethora of issues.
We're all complicated rainbows of opinions and when voting day comes around we're forced to either be red or blue and that's a problem.
1. Effectively, obviously you can vote third party by FPTP single slot elections make this incredibly ineffective - sorry... I really really wish this weren't the case.
We're all complicated rainbows of opinions and when voting day comes around we're forced to either be red or blue and that's a problem.
1. Effectively, obviously you can vote third party by FPTP single slot elections make this incredibly ineffective - sorry... I really really wish this weren't the case.
100% with you that FPTP was a mistake and should be rectified - I've seen some pretty good proposals of how ranked choice voting could work and would result in much more equitable outcomes.
I would never say they shouldn’t vote and if I implied that then that was my mistake. My only point is that disparaging people who appear “party loyal” ignores the motivations that underpin that “loyalty”. On average people are pretty smart and I don’t think it’s too difficult to see some of the very real reasons why, at least nationally, people vote against one party or the other.
The joke about minorities begrudgingly huddling around the Democratic Party exists for a reason.
The joke about minorities begrudgingly huddling around the Democratic Party exists for a reason.
Ah, ok. Good points... So, I have been around awhile -- 6 presidential elections and many more smaller ones.. I got to thinking about this and I realized that at some point, the national conversation changed from 'who you vote for and why' to 'who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win'.
To be fair that kind of rhetoric has existed since even the earliest days of the US, but I think on the whole voting has historically been seen as something you DO rather than something you use to fight against. The change in balance is... worrying.
To be fair that kind of rhetoric has existed since even the earliest days of the US, but I think on the whole voting has historically been seen as something you DO rather than something you use to fight against. The change in balance is... worrying.
Since 1974 every election's plurality major issue has been abortion or war, exactly "who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win"
Abortion will be banned, Bush will start a war, Obama will create the world's first Muslim Socialist state
Abortion will be banned, Bush will start a war, Obama will create the world's first Muslim Socialist state
This is precisely the effect of having a two party system. Negative campaign ads help you as much as they hurt the other guy - Negative campaign ads are also a more effective way to spend your money. Thus we've seen extreme polarization in politics as parties have stopped needing to say what they'll do - and started fear mongering about what the other guys will do.
It's one reason I've been quite happy to see the green new deal (or Biden's totally not the green new deal but most of it) talked about in debates - it's actually a policy position.
It's one reason I've been quite happy to see the green new deal (or Biden's totally not the green new deal but most of it) talked about in debates - it's actually a policy position.
> On average people are pretty smart
This is a vacuous statement. How smart is pretty smart?
This is a vacuous statement. How smart is pretty smart?
What if you are Black and pro-Life, high income and live in the suburbs, married to a Palestinian and have a police officer brother married to a Jew?
With two parties divided along ideological left-right lines, it’s expected that a majority won’t be switching side too often in their lifetime. The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day.
> The opposite would be ideologically weak parties doing a form of clientelism that would change according to the trends of the day.
Like the Southern Strategy, the Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party, and Donald Trump (party-switcher).
Look at the radical positions calling themselves "conservative" today, getting more extreme since the 1980s when religous extremists stated taking over the Republican Party.
One-third of US voters are Independent not registered to a party.
The US electoral system forces to parties, but those parties change and are sometimes replaced.
Like the Southern Strategy, the Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party, and Donald Trump (party-switcher).
Look at the radical positions calling themselves "conservative" today, getting more extreme since the 1980s when religous extremists stated taking over the Republican Party.
One-third of US voters are Independent not registered to a party.
The US electoral system forces to parties, but those parties change and are sometimes replaced.
Comparing the US system with parliamentary governments - I reject the assumption that the two parties are clearly divided along left-right lines. People all have a pretty wide diversity of opinions there are plenty of people I know that are both pro-life and pro-medicare for all - they don't have a home in the US political system and thus have to settle for one party of the other.
The US's two-party entrenchment forces this false appearance of an us vs. them political battle. It's true that in the US you can only legitimately vote for either D or R in races and that this further entrenches the two parties - but issue voters should be flowing pretty freely between the two parties as their individual focuses shift.
The US's two-party entrenchment forces this false appearance of an us vs. them political battle. It's true that in the US you can only legitimately vote for either D or R in races and that this further entrenches the two parties - but issue voters should be flowing pretty freely between the two parties as their individual focuses shift.
'hateful' is entirely relative.
What's wrong with conspiracy theories? They're as harmless as The X Files.
What's wrong with conspiracy theories? They're as harmless as The X Files.
I'm going to need some sources on conspiracy theories being harmless - Pizzagate[1] lead to someone firing off live rounds in a pizza parlor, QAnon is also tied to some kidnappings[2], anti-vaxers have led to somewhere in the range of 50-60k deaths[3] - anti-maskers... it's a bit too early to tell but some folks put the number around 130k[4]...
Conspiracy theories aren't harmless.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/qanon-violen...
3. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/anti-vaxxer-views-blamed-as-me...
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/health/covid-deaths.html
Conspiracy theories aren't harmless.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/15/qanon-violen...
3. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/anti-vaxxer-views-blamed-as-me...
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/health/covid-deaths.html
[3] doesn't claim any numbers on how many surplus deaths 'anti-vaxers' are the cause of.
Ah sorry - to infer, the MMR vaccine had measles on a steady downward trend - the article is highlighting a 15% raise in cases. I think it's safe to attribute 15% of the 140k worldwide deaths to the anti-vax movement since we were actually approaching eliminating that disease (like we did smallpox)
[deleted]
'The "common person" is honestly pretty depressing.'
The "common person" is the one doing the moderating on the platforms. There is no pool of superintelligent, superwise, super-everything people doing the hard work of moderating on the platform. It's just common people.
It's not even a good sample of common people. It has a very particular slant to it; very American, for one thing.
The "common person" is the one doing the moderating on the platforms. There is no pool of superintelligent, superwise, super-everything people doing the hard work of moderating on the platform. It's just common people.
It's not even a good sample of common people. It has a very particular slant to it; very American, for one thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's the same justification that has been used to justify moves away from democracy. "Those poor dumb plebs, they just don't know any better, we, the elites, know whats best, so we should reduce the amount of democracy!" [1]
1. https://archive.org/details/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralC...
You say "some moderation is required to prevent the apparent acceptance of some pretty hateful views along with conspiracy theories", but the entire point is that then you are giving over to some other person or entity the power and ability to decide what you get to read. I think this should be rejected as a slippery slope made of ky-jelly.
"Don't take security in the false refuge of consensus and the feeling that whatever you think you're bound to be okay because you're in the safely moral majority."
"It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear, and every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something." - Christopher Hitchens [2]
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
bonus (the whole speech is quotable): "Dr. Johnson was waited upon by various delegations of people, to congratulate him of the nobility of the quality; of the Commons; the Lords; and also by a delegation of respectable ladies of London, who tended on him in his Fleet Street lodgings and congratulated him: "Dr. Johnson," they said, "We are delighted to find that you have not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary." "Ladies," said Dr. Johnson, "I congratulate you on being able to look them up". Anyone who can understand that joke, and I'm pleased to see that 10% of you can, gets the point about censorship especially prior restraint as it's known in the United States where it's banned by the first amendment to the constitution. It may not be determined in advance what words are apt or inapt, no one has the knowledge that would be required to make that call and - more to the point - one has to suspect the motives of those who do so, in particular: the motives of those who are determined to be offended; of those who will go through a treasure house of English, like Dr. Johnson's first lexicon, in search of filthy words to satisfy themselves and some instinct about which I dare not speculate."
1. https://archive.org/details/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralC...
You say "some moderation is required to prevent the apparent acceptance of some pretty hateful views along with conspiracy theories", but the entire point is that then you are giving over to some other person or entity the power and ability to decide what you get to read. I think this should be rejected as a slippery slope made of ky-jelly.
"Don't take security in the false refuge of consensus and the feeling that whatever you think you're bound to be okay because you're in the safely moral majority."
"It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear, and every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something." - Christopher Hitchens [2]
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
bonus (the whole speech is quotable): "Dr. Johnson was waited upon by various delegations of people, to congratulate him of the nobility of the quality; of the Commons; the Lords; and also by a delegation of respectable ladies of London, who tended on him in his Fleet Street lodgings and congratulated him: "Dr. Johnson," they said, "We are delighted to find that you have not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary." "Ladies," said Dr. Johnson, "I congratulate you on being able to look them up". Anyone who can understand that joke, and I'm pleased to see that 10% of you can, gets the point about censorship especially prior restraint as it's known in the United States where it's banned by the first amendment to the constitution. It may not be determined in advance what words are apt or inapt, no one has the knowledge that would be required to make that call and - more to the point - one has to suspect the motives of those who do so, in particular: the motives of those who are determined to be offended; of those who will go through a treasure house of English, like Dr. Johnson's first lexicon, in search of filthy words to satisfy themselves and some instinct about which I dare not speculate."
>Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor
Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? It's "funny" how those who want to propagate banned material always cast themselves as some repressed group subject to the tyranny of government power.
It can still be posted on Gab or Parler, right?
Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? It's "funny" how those who want to propagate banned material always cast themselves as some repressed group subject to the tyranny of government power.
It can still be posted on Gab or Parler, right?
> Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason?
That's a perfectly fine stance, and it has worked well for traditional publishers like the NY Times and Washington Post for decades. They control all their content, and publish exactly the narrative they want. OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them. See for example the Covington Kid[1].
Facebook and Google want to have their cake and eat it too. They want free rein to pretend like they're just aggregating content, but this election shows that they are definitely using both AI and humans to control what's published. So why should they enjoy all the rights of both a "tech platform" and also a traditional publisher, with none of the responsibilities and liabilities?
Section 230 was crafted explicitly for tech. It can be modified or removed, too.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=covington+kid+lawsuit
That's a perfectly fine stance, and it has worked well for traditional publishers like the NY Times and Washington Post for decades. They control all their content, and publish exactly the narrative they want. OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them. See for example the Covington Kid[1].
Facebook and Google want to have their cake and eat it too. They want free rein to pretend like they're just aggregating content, but this election shows that they are definitely using both AI and humans to control what's published. So why should they enjoy all the rights of both a "tech platform" and also a traditional publisher, with none of the responsibilities and liabilities?
Section 230 was crafted explicitly for tech. It can be modified or removed, too.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=covington+kid+lawsuit
Well no, the entire point of 230 was to allow content aggregators to actively moderate content.
As I see it, there are three options:
1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.
2. What we have now (sites can moderate as they see fit)
3. Some external board adjudicates on what it is acceptable to moderate
Of these, 3 seems by far the worst, and 2 seems better than 1 on empirical grounds.
> OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them.
You also have the legal right to sue Google if they publish content that slanders you. You can even sue them for doxxing you. You wouldn't win either one. Nor would you win if you sued the NYT for doxxing you, or if an NYT article caused you to lose your job. Keep in mind that "the covington kid" didn't actually win any lawsuits, he sued a bunch of people for ridiculous amounts and settled out of court for, likely, a relatively trivial sum. It might have paid for his college, and that was mostly "make it go away" money. He's the free speech equivalent of a patent troll.
As I see it, there are three options:
1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.
2. What we have now (sites can moderate as they see fit)
3. Some external board adjudicates on what it is acceptable to moderate
Of these, 3 seems by far the worst, and 2 seems better than 1 on empirical grounds.
> OTOH, if NY Times publishes an OP Ed that slanders and doxes me, causes me to lose my job, etc. then I have the legal right to sue them.
You also have the legal right to sue Google if they publish content that slanders you. You can even sue them for doxxing you. You wouldn't win either one. Nor would you win if you sued the NYT for doxxing you, or if an NYT article caused you to lose your job. Keep in mind that "the covington kid" didn't actually win any lawsuits, he sued a bunch of people for ridiculous amounts and settled out of court for, likely, a relatively trivial sum. It might have paid for his college, and that was mostly "make it go away" money. He's the free speech equivalent of a patent troll.
> 1. "platforms" are not allowed to moderate content (pre-section 230) without getting liable.
Pre 230, platforms were liable regardless of whether they moderated.
Pre 230, platforms were liable regardless of whether they moderated.
That's incorrect. A platform that choose not to moderate anything was not liable for anything.
Neither the NYT nor WaPo publish UGC, which is a nuance (the nuance, perhaps) that necessitates a middle ground and a recognition that the dish in play is not cake at all.
I didn't like 230 at the time, and frankly we wouldn't be having so many (IF ANY) Facebook headaches over the past 10 years if it had never been born. FB et al didn't want to choose between editorial and common carrier status and the government acceeded to that whine. 230 is what we got, and now we find that 230-protected companies want to exercise editorial control. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but reversing to the common carrier distinction ain't gonna be it.
I didn't like 230 at the time, and frankly we wouldn't be having so many (IF ANY) Facebook headaches over the past 10 years if it had never been born. FB et al didn't want to choose between editorial and common carrier status and the government acceeded to that whine. 230 is what we got, and now we find that 230-protected companies want to exercise editorial control. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but reversing to the common carrier distinction ain't gonna be it.
Is it 'trash' to be upset that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr from a no-show job that looks super crooked?
I understand that it's politically not helpful at this particular moment, and that the Trump kids are worse, but none of that makes it false, and it doesn't make me 'trash' for not liking it.
I understand that it's politically not helpful at this particular moment, and that the Trump kids are worse, but none of that makes it false, and it doesn't make me 'trash' for not liking it.
>Is it 'trash' to be upset that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr from a no-show job that looks super crooked?
Yes, and it outs you as a blinkered rube. To be upset about Hunter Biden is 110% turnip truck.
It doesn't look super-crooked unless you take the word of certain interest-conflicted sources, because sinecures happen all the time, every day, for centuries, and $600K isn't that much for something like that in this day and age. It's simply not a big deal, and thus trash.
And yeah: now do Jared.
Yes, and it outs you as a blinkered rube. To be upset about Hunter Biden is 110% turnip truck.
It doesn't look super-crooked unless you take the word of certain interest-conflicted sources, because sinecures happen all the time, every day, for centuries, and $600K isn't that much for something like that in this day and age. It's simply not a big deal, and thus trash.
And yeah: now do Jared.
> Is it 'trash' to be upset that Hunter Biden made 600k/yr from a no-show job that looks super crooked?
No, because that's clearly verifiable facts summarized by an opinion. Now ask "Is it trash to acknowledge that Hunter Biden had his dad use his influence to replace a straight-laced Ukrainian prosecutor with a corrupt stooge so Hunter could enrich himself?"
That's trash. Or:
"Is it trash to point out how Soros-funded Democrats are involved in a global pedophilia conspiracy that American conservatives are secretly working to take down?"
That's also trash.
No, because that's clearly verifiable facts summarized by an opinion. Now ask "Is it trash to acknowledge that Hunter Biden had his dad use his influence to replace a straight-laced Ukrainian prosecutor with a corrupt stooge so Hunter could enrich himself?"
That's trash. Or:
"Is it trash to point out how Soros-funded Democrats are involved in a global pedophilia conspiracy that American conservatives are secretly working to take down?"
That's also trash.
[deleted]
It gets into the realm of speculation with partial facts, but you can make a pretty good case that Biden was involved with replacing one corrupt stooge with another one, who then just happened to drop all investigations into Hunter Biden's shady employer. Matt Taibbi has done some good reporting on this lately.
You could cast doubt on Taibbi or an any narrative that fills in the blanks in some places, but compare to the fevered Russia-conspiracy talk that got mainstream credibility, Rachel Maddow features, WaPo editorial references, etc for years. Is one so much worse than the other? Or is it just a matter of which side it favors in the short-term?
You could cast doubt on Taibbi or an any narrative that fills in the blanks in some places, but compare to the fevered Russia-conspiracy talk that got mainstream credibility, Rachel Maddow features, WaPo editorial references, etc for years. Is one so much worse than the other? Or is it just a matter of which side it favors in the short-term?
I do not cast doubt on Taibbi. I think the work he is doing is great, and should have been where the effort was in the first place. But so much of that particular topic is just circumstantial chum in the water that either few people actually investigated, or those that did could find little real supporting evidence.
But let me use Taibbi's own words here: “If something comes in and we don’t know the exact providence of it, that doesn’t mean we can’t publish it. All we have to do is establish that it’s true, and a lot of important stories have been broken that way.”
Ironically, Taibbi seems to say this as a criticism for Twitter reacting to the NYPost story. Except the NYPost did no work to establish it was true and even hired a Hannity employee to publish it since their own journalists wouldn't do it. That to me is the problem.
Twitter and Facebook, through action or inaction, now impact our democracy. Their action or inaction gives them responsibility whether asked for or not, conferred or not. I think this creates a need to act responsibly. I don't know how this should best be done, but I'm categorically against a complete "hands-off" given the expertise we've seen at creating and spreading manipulated content.
But let me use Taibbi's own words here: “If something comes in and we don’t know the exact providence of it, that doesn’t mean we can’t publish it. All we have to do is establish that it’s true, and a lot of important stories have been broken that way.”
Ironically, Taibbi seems to say this as a criticism for Twitter reacting to the NYPost story. Except the NYPost did no work to establish it was true and even hired a Hannity employee to publish it since their own journalists wouldn't do it. That to me is the problem.
Twitter and Facebook, through action or inaction, now impact our democracy. Their action or inaction gives them responsibility whether asked for or not, conferred or not. I think this creates a need to act responsibly. I don't know how this should best be done, but I'm categorically against a complete "hands-off" given the expertise we've seen at creating and spreading manipulated content.
I'll just say, if you're gonna put your thumb on the scale, you need to not fuck it up.
They streisand-effected the whole story, and made themselves look bad and unfair in the process -- how many unsourced claims about Russian interference have they let stand? This was a fiasco all around.
Cheers and solidarity.
They streisand-effected the whole story, and made themselves look bad and unfair in the process -- how many unsourced claims about Russian interference have they let stand? This was a fiasco all around.
Cheers and solidarity.
[deleted]
The Burisma investigation was dropped by the shady prosecutor before the prosecutor was replaced. The opposition to the previous prosecutor was multi-national
> It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth.
You present this as an axiom, like it's some kind of foregone conclusion, but why? Why shouldn't they be allowed to curate what content makes on their platform? I'm not saying they should have a legal mandate to judge truth, but if they object to certain publications, articles, authors, posts, etc, that's up to them.
You present this as an axiom, like it's some kind of foregone conclusion, but why? Why shouldn't they be allowed to curate what content makes on their platform? I'm not saying they should have a legal mandate to judge truth, but if they object to certain publications, articles, authors, posts, etc, that's up to them.
"Unfiltered Information" is a nice ideal but it's also just not true. Additionally it doesn't account for intentional disinformation.
Regardless of the source, the information has already been filtered through whoever is presenting it.
(In this specific case I think the actions taken by Twitter were bone-headed/shortsighted but Twitter has no obligation to host any content or uphold your first amendment rights because they don't apply to Twitter.)
Regardless of the source, the information has already been filtered through whoever is presenting it.
(In this specific case I think the actions taken by Twitter were bone-headed/shortsighted but Twitter has no obligation to host any content or uphold your first amendment rights because they don't apply to Twitter.)
> Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false.
They can't. They simply aren't capable.
I don't even have to use a fallacy, this is literally happening:
The US has a growing population of people who sincerely believe devil-worshiping democrats are drinking the blood of stolen children. 15 are running for US congress.
We no longer need to even "slippery slope it", the worst-case scenario is happening: disinformation is usurping facts at an alarming rate with very real consequences.
They can't. They simply aren't capable.
I don't even have to use a fallacy, this is literally happening:
The US has a growing population of people who sincerely believe devil-worshiping democrats are drinking the blood of stolen children. 15 are running for US congress.
We no longer need to even "slippery slope it", the worst-case scenario is happening: disinformation is usurping facts at an alarming rate with very real consequences.
[deleted]
Not disagreeing, but your comment leaves me with a lot of questions...
What would be the difference in this argument between 'social media' and other media? For example, should the same be true of newspapers? What about scientific or government publications?
If people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is true, should private for-profit companies also be allowed to decide what is true for themselves?
Do you consider stories that are verifiably false to be "unfiltered information"? Why should it be considered "information" if it's not true? Does it matter if the information being presented was known to be false and is being published for subversive politically motivated reasons?
Is your framing that they're saying people are dumb really true if the "information" is difficult or impossible to verify? Does it matter if it's a breaking story and there's only one such source of information? Does it matter if, statistically, there's a sizeable portion of smart people that will accept published stories as true?
What would be the difference in this argument between 'social media' and other media? For example, should the same be true of newspapers? What about scientific or government publications?
If people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is true, should private for-profit companies also be allowed to decide what is true for themselves?
Do you consider stories that are verifiably false to be "unfiltered information"? Why should it be considered "information" if it's not true? Does it matter if the information being presented was known to be false and is being published for subversive politically motivated reasons?
Is your framing that they're saying people are dumb really true if the "information" is difficult or impossible to verify? Does it matter if it's a breaking story and there's only one such source of information? Does it matter if, statistically, there's a sizeable portion of smart people that will accept published stories as true?
But here you have a man who stormed a pizza parlor with an AR-15, ready to uncover the global cabal of pedophilia that has infiltrated the Democratic Party.
Or the woman who won't vaccinate her children because she believes vaccines cause autism.
Or the person, communicating via the satellites that circle the Earth, who believes that the Earth is flat.
These people aren't rare - they're common. We live in an era of disinformation, and the very idea of truth has been eroded.
False stories spread over Twitter like wildfire, and to think that the majority of the thousands of readers who consume them are fact-checking them is perhaps a bit hopeful.
Or the woman who won't vaccinate her children because she believes vaccines cause autism.
Or the person, communicating via the satellites that circle the Earth, who believes that the Earth is flat.
These people aren't rare - they're common. We live in an era of disinformation, and the very idea of truth has been eroded.
False stories spread over Twitter like wildfire, and to think that the majority of the thousands of readers who consume them are fact-checking them is perhaps a bit hopeful.
Lack of mental institutions are to blame not free speech on Twitter and FB. How about not making policys to combat covid-5g and the flat earth club.
Twitter is not a bastion of free speech though, because a huge fraction of it is simply propaganda posing as free speech. On the day of the 2016 election, one of the top ten most re-tweeted accounts was a fake Russian account posing as an American conservative organization.
Covid-56 and flat earthers are some of the most outlandish examples, but the vast majority of misinformation is more subtle, and therefore more insidious. I'm not suggesting what the solution should be, but it's clear that complete un-regulation has lead to a completely broken information space.
Covid-56 and flat earthers are some of the most outlandish examples, but the vast majority of misinformation is more subtle, and therefore more insidious. I'm not suggesting what the solution should be, but it's clear that complete un-regulation has lead to a completely broken information space.
I can appreciate the deeply principled stand people on HN tend to make about this issue. I know there is a libertarian streak here around the access to content and information. I don't share those values, and think unchecked distribution of manipulated content creates a worse outcome for our society; I'd argue it is more inherently dystopian than straight-up government censored speech, which of course is not what's at stake here.
It doesn't matter whether I trust them to vote because they have a right to vote no matter what I think. I definitely do not trust masses of people to identify real vs. manipulated content that is expertly designed to be misleading, and I think companies that directly facilitate the spread of information have some level of responsibility for the consequences of enabling manipulated media to infect their users. I don't know what the balance is, I'm not dogmatic, but I think everyone needs to be a little less dogmatic on this issue.
It doesn't matter whether I trust them to vote because they have a right to vote no matter what I think. I definitely do not trust masses of people to identify real vs. manipulated content that is expertly designed to be misleading, and I think companies that directly facilitate the spread of information have some level of responsibility for the consequences of enabling manipulated media to infect their users. I don't know what the balance is, I'm not dogmatic, but I think everyone needs to be a little less dogmatic on this issue.
Well argued point. However, I would counter that we should not do evil in the pursuit of good.
Let's find another way that does not limit free speech. It will be a harder solution to find sure, but the converse is too dangerous and nuanced to be implemented. It also gives social media companies undue influence over our democracy.
Let's find another way that does not limit free speech. It will be a harder solution to find sure, but the converse is too dangerous and nuanced to be implemented. It also gives social media companies undue influence over our democracy.
I suppose at the end of the day, I just don't see Twitter or Facebook playing some level of QA in manipulated media as censorship of free speech. Requiring some level of investigative work before publishing potential election-changing "news" doesn't seem at all controversial to me.
Social media companies already have undue influence over our democracy. I think we've already seen the damage they can do when they take a hands-off approach. There is no action they can take (or not take) that will not have major political implications. Do nothing and misinformation spreads like wildfire, likely first by bad-faith actors then by good and bad-faith actors. But doing something is fraught. Yet, I advocate for trying something over keeping one's hand off the till as we're talking about the real world here, and it is marginalized and under-served communities that ultimately pay the price.
Social media companies already have undue influence over our democracy. I think we've already seen the damage they can do when they take a hands-off approach. There is no action they can take (or not take) that will not have major political implications. Do nothing and misinformation spreads like wildfire, likely first by bad-faith actors then by good and bad-faith actors. But doing something is fraught. Yet, I advocate for trying something over keeping one's hand off the till as we're talking about the real world here, and it is marginalized and under-served communities that ultimately pay the price.
Everyone might have to start considering and addressing the needs of these people instead of ignoring them. The reason people are so exploitable is because those in power, who have intelligence and access to good information, seemingly despise the masses. At the very least dismiss them with contempt and ignore them.
The correct answer is to treat everyone as a worthy person, regardless of their intellectual prowess. The current left, with their self professed mission for the underdog, are the worst about this. The contempt a person must have for their fellow man in order to deem them as unworthy of free speech, is gut wrenching. Instead, we should be finding ways to make socially responsible ideas more accessible and inclusive for _everyone_.
The correct answer is to treat everyone as a worthy person, regardless of their intellectual prowess. The current left, with their self professed mission for the underdog, are the worst about this. The contempt a person must have for their fellow man in order to deem them as unworthy of free speech, is gut wrenching. Instead, we should be finding ways to make socially responsible ideas more accessible and inclusive for _everyone_.
> The contempt a person must have for their fellow man in order to deem them as unworthy of free speech, is gut wrenching
You don't know me. That you feel I have so much contempt for my "fellow man" because of this disagreement of ours is wild. I may just as well bemoan - in equally bad faith - your contempt for honesty, transparency, or reality.
At no point have I argued that anyone should be prevented from free speech, yet there your accusation sits. My argument that purveyors of socially-distributed content have some level of responsibility for the real-world impacts this creates, particularly on marginalized communities that are often not sharing/consuming this information and only victimized by it. Did I say anyone should be prevented from expressing themselves? No. Neither do I offer solutions because I am not an expert. But I don't believe a completely "hands-free" approach is viable because of how easy it is to manipulate content, trick people, and use tricks to ensure your message is spread in non-natural ways (e.g., bot farms). That is not "contempt" for the intellectual prowess of others, it's a recognition of the reality we've already seen; I'm not immune to it and neither are you.
I find your seemingly dogmatic belief well-intentioned (a courtesy you certainly did not apply to me) yet naive, hopeful but damaging. I believe - wholeheartedly - that the position I take is much more respectful of people and communities than yours. Because I'm not taking an ivory tower principled stand as if there are no real world implications. There have been, there are, there will be.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to admit that. But this isn't merely an intellectual exercise for me as I feel it often is for so many.
You don't know me. That you feel I have so much contempt for my "fellow man" because of this disagreement of ours is wild. I may just as well bemoan - in equally bad faith - your contempt for honesty, transparency, or reality.
At no point have I argued that anyone should be prevented from free speech, yet there your accusation sits. My argument that purveyors of socially-distributed content have some level of responsibility for the real-world impacts this creates, particularly on marginalized communities that are often not sharing/consuming this information and only victimized by it. Did I say anyone should be prevented from expressing themselves? No. Neither do I offer solutions because I am not an expert. But I don't believe a completely "hands-free" approach is viable because of how easy it is to manipulate content, trick people, and use tricks to ensure your message is spread in non-natural ways (e.g., bot farms). That is not "contempt" for the intellectual prowess of others, it's a recognition of the reality we've already seen; I'm not immune to it and neither are you.
I find your seemingly dogmatic belief well-intentioned (a courtesy you certainly did not apply to me) yet naive, hopeful but damaging. I believe - wholeheartedly - that the position I take is much more respectful of people and communities than yours. Because I'm not taking an ivory tower principled stand as if there are no real world implications. There have been, there are, there will be.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to admit that. But this isn't merely an intellectual exercise for me as I feel it often is for so many.
[deleted]
If social media companies don't want to be used as transmission vectors of obvious foreign political influence, then they don't have to be. Just like if they don't want to be used as transmission vectors of pornography or any other type of content, then they don't have to be. In both cases it requires setting some sort of content standard and making decisions about whether the content meets that standard.
If it is truly foreign influence, then it is on the FBI/DoJ to do the investigation and publicly declare it as such and order it to be taken down.
Social Media companies are not equipped to make that distinction and should not do so.
Social Media companies are not equipped to make that distinction and should not do so.
Are you arguing that social media companies should not remove posts and instead let normal individuals determine what's true; while also arguing that billion-dollar social media companies are not capable of determining what's true?
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes"
>That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
But fake news has been spreading a lot, while maybe not in your circles it does still happen. And retraction or an apology article will not be spread as widely due to the fact that a lot of fake news is specifically inflammatory to be spread quickly and widely.
But fake news has been spreading a lot, while maybe not in your circles it does still happen. And retraction or an apology article will not be spread as widely due to the fact that a lot of fake news is specifically inflammatory to be spread quickly and widely.
The truth is often not black and white and doubly so when in the context of persuasion. When you start censoring information for accuracy then you're only getting one person's version of the truth which is even worse because now you're putting a gold stamp on it!
That is a really really big danger here - but it's also how American media worked for a really long time. It comes with an enormous inherent pro-establishment bias but I think it's valid to view that bias as possibly being the lesser of evils.
I'm still on the fence personally, this is a really hard problem.
I'm still on the fence personally, this is a really hard problem.
Why?
Who's job should it be?
> we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
Maybe dumb is the wrong word - but most people are not that bright. There's nothing wrong with saying that - it's why BS marketing is so effective.
Who's job should it be?
> we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
Maybe dumb is the wrong word - but most people are not that bright. There's nothing wrong with saying that - it's why BS marketing is so effective.
> That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person.
Isn't it self evident by now that most people lack critical thinking skills?
Isn't it self evident by now that most people lack critical thinking skills?
Yes. And yet ever five seconds I'm bombarded by someone telling me to vote. I guess they don't care if people without critical thinking skills vote.
It's my opinion that getting everyone to vote is the best option - there is a whole big chunk of the electorate that's quite uninformed but any attempt to narrow down the pool of eligible voters seems quite likely to fall into authoritarianism to me.
We've got a lot of historical evidence about what happens if you let only people of certain skin colors, gender or wealth vote and all of those approaches were eventually rejected in favor of a universal voting system[1]. Democracy seems like our best bet for a fair and just government and I'm strongly in favor of having better representation of the actual beliefs of the citizenry - even if they're folks I disagree with.
1. Assuming you ignore American oddities like the electoral college, ignore tacitly socially accepted voter suppression and accept that minimum voting ages should be a thing (which I'm still pretty "meh" on personally but whatever).
We've got a lot of historical evidence about what happens if you let only people of certain skin colors, gender or wealth vote and all of those approaches were eventually rejected in favor of a universal voting system[1]. Democracy seems like our best bet for a fair and just government and I'm strongly in favor of having better representation of the actual beliefs of the citizenry - even if they're folks I disagree with.
1. Assuming you ignore American oddities like the electoral college, ignore tacitly socially accepted voter suppression and accept that minimum voting ages should be a thing (which I'm still pretty "meh" on personally but whatever).
Do you think there is also a danger of uninformed voters bringing about authoritarianism?
Absolutely yea - especially since we're sorta leaning that way in America right now. But I think that that risk is coming out of undemocratic qualities of our government rather than the democratic ones.
I really really want to dump FPTP voting since I think it inevitably leads to two party systems and that two-party partisan us vs. them politics is what lets authoritarianism grow.
I really really want to dump FPTP voting since I think it inevitably leads to two party systems and that two-party partisan us vs. them politics is what lets authoritarianism grow.
Thanks for the reply. My perspective is that democracy is a type of authoritarianism, or at least closely related because the elections are decision-forcing processes that result in the losing side not getting what they want. How would you reconcile this?
I don't think you really can, we all live in a society and compromises need to be made for all of us to enjoy a moderate amount of freedom while not impinging on that of others. We don't currently live in a society that comes close to maximizing freedom for everyone (freedom of opportunity is denied to the majority of folks in the US and elsewhere) but I think we're on the right general path to eventually approach a Star Trek future.
I really appreciate parliamentary governments over the hot mess the US has - I think you get a lot better representation especially when no one party has a majority. If everyone is in a minority then you have consensus through coalitions of different fractions and it gets a lot closer to each skinny slice of the nation getting a legitimate say. The more slices you have the better your representation of the public will (up to, ultimately, true popular democracy) but as a society we probably want either majority or strong majority decisions to guide us and that's just conceptually incompatible with no one getting their free-will stomped on.
This hits a really deep point on the topic of freedom - I have the right to not be murdered, but that right comes at the cost of anyone who wants to murder me... restrictions of rights are necessary for greater general societal rights.
I really appreciate parliamentary governments over the hot mess the US has - I think you get a lot better representation especially when no one party has a majority. If everyone is in a minority then you have consensus through coalitions of different fractions and it gets a lot closer to each skinny slice of the nation getting a legitimate say. The more slices you have the better your representation of the public will (up to, ultimately, true popular democracy) but as a society we probably want either majority or strong majority decisions to guide us and that's just conceptually incompatible with no one getting their free-will stomped on.
This hits a really deep point on the topic of freedom - I have the right to not be murdered, but that right comes at the cost of anyone who wants to murder me... restrictions of rights are necessary for greater general societal rights.
Thanks for the reply. What is the minimum viable ruleset for a sustainable community? Does that ruleset change with technology?
I don't know the minimum viable ruleset that we'd all find acceptable but it's an ethical question that changes over time with societal ethics. We value different violations with different levels of punishment - if we were living in madmax times then maybe rules around water sharing and preservation would be chief among folks.
That ruleset does change with technology on a functional level (murder with a gun when guns don't exist is a non-issue) I don't think there is a particularly interesting relationship with technology though - it's more just an extension of existing rules to platforms.
One thing that might counter that is doxing though - this is a pretty new phenomena that was pretty inconceivable when the world moved slower and humans were more directly involved with communication handling. I think you have the right to not be doxed but I don't think that right clearly translates to any pre-internet rights - it might be an implied right (but unstated or considered due to the infeasibility) but it is a pretty good example of a more novel rule for a sustainable community... that said we're still societally new to the internet so maybe it eventually won't be a rule and we'll find that doxing was an unfortunate emergent behavior of some integrated systems that really shouldn't have been integrated.
That ruleset does change with technology on a functional level (murder with a gun when guns don't exist is a non-issue) I don't think there is a particularly interesting relationship with technology though - it's more just an extension of existing rules to platforms.
One thing that might counter that is doxing though - this is a pretty new phenomena that was pretty inconceivable when the world moved slower and humans were more directly involved with communication handling. I think you have the right to not be doxed but I don't think that right clearly translates to any pre-internet rights - it might be an implied right (but unstated or considered due to the infeasibility) but it is a pretty good example of a more novel rule for a sustainable community... that said we're still societally new to the internet so maybe it eventually won't be a rule and we'll find that doxing was an unfortunate emergent behavior of some integrated systems that really shouldn't have been integrated.
> It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false
This only works if they remove themselves from choosing what to show who, what to promote, and what to demote.
As long as they are actively choosing who will see what, how often, what things will be promoted, etc. Then they are basically the judge and jury. This is their current dilemma. That's why they're starting to have stronger moderation. They'd want to actively promote things that make them money, and moderate away all things that puts them in hot water, without it affecting the money they make.
This only works if they remove themselves from choosing what to show who, what to promote, and what to demote.
As long as they are actively choosing who will see what, how often, what things will be promoted, etc. Then they are basically the judge and jury. This is their current dilemma. That's why they're starting to have stronger moderation. They'd want to actively promote things that make them money, and moderate away all things that puts them in hot water, without it affecting the money they make.
Unfortunately most people are too blinded by political allegiance too correctly decide what is true. Might be a damming view of the common person but that doesn't make it untrue.
It's not that people are "too dumb" but rather that they aren't going to do the work needed to verify a story. How many phone calls do you make to verify something before resharing it? Most people make zero phone calls.
If you don't do the work, there's no reason to believe that you can do as good a job judging plausibility of a story as a good journalist can do. It's not about who's smarter, it's about not having the evidence.
I don't make any phone calls either, but I try to crib from people who do their homework. I also appreciate basic filtering to keep the noise down. It's not that I couldn't do my own spam filtering, but rather I don't want to.
If you don't do the work, there's no reason to believe that you can do as good a job judging plausibility of a story as a good journalist can do. It's not about who's smarter, it's about not having the evidence.
I don't make any phone calls either, but I try to crib from people who do their homework. I also appreciate basic filtering to keep the noise down. It's not that I couldn't do my own spam filtering, but rather I don't want to.
Exactly this. Medium that uses censorship for any reason, they think you are too stupid to understand the content in front of you so they take that decision from you to delete something. That should be illegal with few exceptions.
>That should be illegal with few exceptions.
And thus the right wing comes around to centralized government control of companies.
And thus the right wing comes around to centralized government control of companies.
That’s just the AuthRight, which to be honest seem to make up most right wing discourse these days. It’s curious.
Not sure what it has to do with right/left wing. Free speech should exist regardless of your economic or social views and should be protected with the force of law.
how is forcing a company to platform your views free speech?
Platforms should welcome users of any background and views. Company shouldn't be able to ban someone based on their views and opinions. If user will violating T&C or the law then company should be able to remove the account.
Because the (US) right wing and libertarians are the forces first to raise a hue and cry of socialism and central planning in response to any suggestion of government oversight of corporate activities.
> Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor.
Most platforms, Twitter included, just wanted to be dumb service providers. They don't want to spend money and carry responsibility moderating content.
It was large media outlets and the public outrage they produced over "fake news" and "the far right" that pressured them into taking a more proactive stance.
People like me who were opposing it back then and saying "you don't know what you're asking for" got labeled far right, and essentially bunched with Trump, which was hilarious to me as a left leaning European.
Newspapers now becoming angry Twitter is evenly applying the new rules - the rules newspapers lobbied for - is even more hilarious to me.
And you have to understand that Twitter did not make a mistake in how they responded to this. The article objectively was against their rules.
Whether these rules are good rules is another matter, but clearly the whole thing was dumb from the start.
Most platforms, Twitter included, just wanted to be dumb service providers. They don't want to spend money and carry responsibility moderating content.
It was large media outlets and the public outrage they produced over "fake news" and "the far right" that pressured them into taking a more proactive stance.
People like me who were opposing it back then and saying "you don't know what you're asking for" got labeled far right, and essentially bunched with Trump, which was hilarious to me as a left leaning European.
Newspapers now becoming angry Twitter is evenly applying the new rules - the rules newspapers lobbied for - is even more hilarious to me.
And you have to understand that Twitter did not make a mistake in how they responded to this. The article objectively was against their rules.
Whether these rules are good rules is another matter, but clearly the whole thing was dumb from the start.
> Most platforms, Twitter included, just wanted to be dumb service providers. They don't want to spend money and carry responsibility moderating content.
Not really. They already spend time and money figuring out what content to promote and demote in order to increase engagement and maximize their ad revenue. They're just finding that the some of the kinds of things that tend to surface because of that are the kinds of things that they need to moderate, otherwise people (both users and advertisers) will get fed up with the platform and leave.
Not really. They already spend time and money figuring out what content to promote and demote in order to increase engagement and maximize their ad revenue. They're just finding that the some of the kinds of things that tend to surface because of that are the kinds of things that they need to moderate, otherwise people (both users and advertisers) will get fed up with the platform and leave.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the NY Times pushing false information that led to the second Iraq War? Should they get penalized on Twitter after pushing a narrative that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths?
From the NY Times itself (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...)
"But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified."
From the NY Times itself (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...)
"But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified."
For a more recent example, see the NYT coverage of the Bolivian coup last year.
I think the pro-establishment lean of media back in the day (and advocacy for the Iraq war is a great example) is really the heart of the problems we've got today. Society and media is reacting to the overly heavy censorship of established platforms - but what we're seeing today with widely embraced conspiracy theories is pretty dangerous to society.
Was the Iraq war a one-off event where media held far too much trust and abused it? Is it just the continuation of a pattern of media being used as a tool of the state (either wittingly or unwittingly)? I'm leaning toward the second option but I still don't know if the inherent pro-establishment bias you get with large media conglomerates outweighs the benefits of vetted news.
The only thing I can say for sure is that public media funding (like PBS and the like) to subsidize the cost of media companies ends up having rather little effect on those outlets' biases, while forcing media to depend on corporate sponsorship absolutely does corrupt the messaging delivered to the populace at large. So I'm not certain what our media landscape should look like, but I'm definitely against people who decry any government sponsorship of news as being political mouthpieces - public radio and tv should form part of our news digest, their funding is diverse enough to allow them to freely criticize both national and local governments and while it probably won't yield the really valuable investigative journalism we need to fight corruption it's definitely part of the solution.
Was the Iraq war a one-off event where media held far too much trust and abused it? Is it just the continuation of a pattern of media being used as a tool of the state (either wittingly or unwittingly)? I'm leaning toward the second option but I still don't know if the inherent pro-establishment bias you get with large media conglomerates outweighs the benefits of vetted news.
The only thing I can say for sure is that public media funding (like PBS and the like) to subsidize the cost of media companies ends up having rather little effect on those outlets' biases, while forcing media to depend on corporate sponsorship absolutely does corrupt the messaging delivered to the populace at large. So I'm not certain what our media landscape should look like, but I'm definitely against people who decry any government sponsorship of news as being political mouthpieces - public radio and tv should form part of our news digest, their funding is diverse enough to allow them to freely criticize both national and local governments and while it probably won't yield the really valuable investigative journalism we need to fight corruption it's definitely part of the solution.
[deleted](1)
I don't think there's any evidence that the times purposefully published information that they strongly suspected to be untrue. That is what the post did. The times made mistakes, but they admitted it and apologized, as seen in the link you posted. The post maliciously overruled their own newsroom to post fake news.
What fake news did the NY Post publish?
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven
Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment.
Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.
Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment.
Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.
You should check out the NYTimes' coverage of every rumor in Sarah Palin's family right after she was picked as the VP running mate in 2008.
A few months ago there was non-stop coverage of the president purportedly saying very mean things about soldiers. This was from an anonymous source. Even Bolton who is no fan of the president said that it didn't happen. It got 24/7 playtime by the media.
Now on the other day the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate and what happens? Nothing. As usual 'the powers that be' have the media in the pocket.
how long till this comment gets disappeared? I hope I don't get fired!
Now on the other day the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate and what happens? Nothing. As usual 'the powers that be' have the media in the pocket.
how long till this comment gets disappeared? I hope I don't get fired!
" the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate "
Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
is it fake or is it russian disinformation? I can't keep up with you types.
Who deleted your response to ZeteticElench? You, or the mods? Usually when they delete something, they include a comment that says "this comment was deleted because it violates our community standards" or whatever.
I absolutely did not delete anything. Maybe I got 'zucced'
I don't think it's possible to delete your own comment on HN.
It's possible for the mods to "shadow delete" your comments: it still appears to you when you're logged in, but no-one else can see it. (To see if any your comments have been shadow-deleted, check out the difference between news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yourusername when you're logged in and logged out.)
It's possible for the mods to "shadow delete" your comments: it still appears to you when you're logged in, but no-one else can see it. (To see if any your comments have been shadow-deleted, check out the difference between news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yourusername when you're logged in and logged out.)
I think you can delete a comment shortly after it was made and if there's no answers to it yet.
Edit: for example, right now I have a delete button for this message
Edit: for example, right now I have a delete button for this message
Fake? Didn't Biden's lawyer ask for the laptop back? If it was fake why did ask for a laptop that wasn't theirs?
"Didn't Biden's lawyer ask for the laptop back? "
Proof?
Proof?
Where's the evidence that the data on the hard drives and laptop were fabricated? There's a lot more physical evidence behind the Hunter Biden Laptop Story (and its censorship) than there was behind, oh I don't know, the impeachment of the President last January.
I must assume you have personal possession of exculpatory physical evidence. Please share your physical evidence that discredits the physical evidence you don't like unearthed by the New York Post
Please downvote me if you have no evidence it was faked or know there's no evidence or want to see the NY Post story discredited because Trump should be replaced at any cost.
Also note: other news publications, like the Washington Post, claiming that the hard drive data is "not verified" without any evidence beyond their own reputation, which itself is long since forfeit, is not evidence.
I must assume you have personal possession of exculpatory physical evidence. Please share your physical evidence that discredits the physical evidence you don't like unearthed by the New York Post
Please downvote me if you have no evidence it was faked or know there's no evidence or want to see the NY Post story discredited because Trump should be replaced at any cost.
Also note: other news publications, like the Washington Post, claiming that the hard drive data is "not verified" without any evidence beyond their own reputation, which itself is long since forfeit, is not evidence.
After the Killian documents controversy, the onus is on the publisher to authenticate this type information before they publish it, not on the public to believe it until it is shown to be inauthentic. In that event, the Republican candidate was hurt by a forgery that then resulted in the resignation of Dan Rather, a very prominent news anchor.
In the impeachment case, that was not a case of the press digging up a document and making an accusation. It was the release of an accusation made to an inspector general. In and of itself, that is news. The fact that the white house was trying to prevent the release of the inspector general complaint to the Congress was also news. At that point, the veracity of the claim needs to be determined, and opinions clearly differed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
In the impeachment case, that was not a case of the press digging up a document and making an accusation. It was the release of an accusation made to an inspector general. In and of itself, that is news. The fact that the white house was trying to prevent the release of the inspector general complaint to the Congress was also news. At that point, the veracity of the claim needs to be determined, and opinions clearly differed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
mainstreem(2)
Obviously fake? The Biden camp hasn’t disputed the authenticity of the materials.
How is it “obviously” fake? Especially since most of the media refuses to investigate it — even if to establish that it isn’t fake? The media had no problem running with the very obviously fake Steele Dossier that claimed Trump got a golden shower on a hotel bed Obama once slept in. There was zero corroboration or legitimacy for that, but that dossier was used as a basis to obtain FISA warrant and ultimately led to an impeachment.
It’s “obviously fake,” because it’s politically uncomfortable, not because it’s actually “obviously fake.”
How is it “obviously” fake? Especially since most of the media refuses to investigate it — even if to establish that it isn’t fake? The media had no problem running with the very obviously fake Steele Dossier that claimed Trump got a golden shower on a hotel bed Obama once slept in. There was zero corroboration or legitimacy for that, but that dossier was used as a basis to obtain FISA warrant and ultimately led to an impeachment.
It’s “obviously fake,” because it’s politically uncomfortable, not because it’s actually “obviously fake.”
John Paul "Mac" Isaac is not even remotely trustworthy and nothing about the story is plausible.
According to a Daily Beast interview, Isaac “switched back and forth” between saying that he contacted the FBI and saying the FBI contacted him. He also claimed that the FBI asked him for help in accessing the drive, though he didn’t indicate that the drive was encrypted or protected in any way.
There’s are several huge missing pieces in this story. For example, what did Isaac say to the FBI? “Hello, someone brought in a computer, and I think it belongs to Beau Biden.” If so, why would the FBI say anything other than, “Then give it back?” Why would Beau Biden dropping off a wet laptop cause the FBI to have any interest at all?
This, then, is the “official” story from the Post and Giuliani: A mysterious stranger drops off a laptop at a shop belonging to a legally blind Trump supporter who has said disparaging things about Biden. Nine months later, the FBI asks for that computer. Then 10 months after that, Giuliani hands over to the New York Post what he says is a copy of that computer’s hard drive. In between those dates, we have nothing. Well, nothing except for more Facebook statements from Isaac, who does devote some time to saying that Trump’s impeachment is a sham, but says nothing at all about Hunter Biden’s crack-smoking video that he found on a computer left at his store. And we have a lot of statements from Giuliani during this period, many of them essentially identical to what will eventually appear in the Post story.
According to a Daily Beast interview, Isaac “switched back and forth” between saying that he contacted the FBI and saying the FBI contacted him. He also claimed that the FBI asked him for help in accessing the drive, though he didn’t indicate that the drive was encrypted or protected in any way.
There’s are several huge missing pieces in this story. For example, what did Isaac say to the FBI? “Hello, someone brought in a computer, and I think it belongs to Beau Biden.” If so, why would the FBI say anything other than, “Then give it back?” Why would Beau Biden dropping off a wet laptop cause the FBI to have any interest at all?
This, then, is the “official” story from the Post and Giuliani: A mysterious stranger drops off a laptop at a shop belonging to a legally blind Trump supporter who has said disparaging things about Biden. Nine months later, the FBI asks for that computer. Then 10 months after that, Giuliani hands over to the New York Post what he says is a copy of that computer’s hard drive. In between those dates, we have nothing. Well, nothing except for more Facebook statements from Isaac, who does devote some time to saying that Trump’s impeachment is a sham, but says nothing at all about Hunter Biden’s crack-smoking video that he found on a computer left at his store. And we have a lot of statements from Giuliani during this period, many of them essentially identical to what will eventually appear in the Post story.
He got to keep the laptop when Biden never returned to collect it (didn't pay for the work done). He found fishy stuff on it and turned it over to the FBI not after making copies of the hard drives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYzCwiURwwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYzCwiURwwQ
Ok, so the story about how they obtained the laptop is sketchy. Fine.
What about the actual contents of the laptop? The emails, text messages, photos, and videos?
Nobody from the Biden camp has come out and denied the authenticity of the emails or the text messages that have been published. Why not?
In fact, you have one of Hunter Biden's former business associates who has come out and confirmed the authenticity of some of the materials.
What about the actual contents of the laptop? The emails, text messages, photos, and videos?
Nobody from the Biden camp has come out and denied the authenticity of the emails or the text messages that have been published. Why not?
In fact, you have one of Hunter Biden's former business associates who has come out and confirmed the authenticity of some of the materials.
[deleted]
Trump lied in the very same sentence he denied the statement in. At this point if he says something didn't happen it's likely that it did.
This equivocation of news sources is how misinformation spreads. Look at how WSJ handled same story vs NYP. WSJ is indeed more reputable as is NYTimes
I'm not equivocating any news source. My stance on this is that there should be NO censorship, period.
Here's the New York Times article about how the Wall Street Journal's handling of this compared with the New York Post's.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
The New York Times once allowed itself to be used as a mouthpiece for Stalin, publishing Walter Duranty's denials of famine in Ukraine. They didn't come clean on this until 1990: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not...
More recently, they allowed themselves to be used as the uncritical mouthpiece of the American federal government when they were starting an illegal war predicated on lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller
If the NYTimes isn't pure, then surely none are. Genocide denial is particularly egregious, but at least they eventually came clean. I still read the NYTimes more than any other paper, but we must always remember to keep an open mind and to never be too trusting of what any newspaper says.
More recently, they allowed themselves to be used as the uncritical mouthpiece of the American federal government when they were starting an illegal war predicated on lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller
If the NYTimes isn't pure, then surely none are. Genocide denial is particularly egregious, but at least they eventually came clean. I still read the NYTimes more than any other paper, but we must always remember to keep an open mind and to never be too trusting of what any newspaper says.
This seems to be a straw man argument. No in this thread is arguing that only "pure" outlets should be respected. The question is whether it was correct to lock the account of a media outlet that seems to be deliberately publishing news they know to be likely untruthful in an effort to sway the upcoming US presidential election.
Would twitter have blocked NYTimes in response to Walter Duranty or Judith Miller's reporting? Denying genocide or uncritically spreading pro-war propaganda seem comparably egregious to anything the NYPost has done.
If the NYT's reporting were obviously a falsification, yes. Twitter would probably block them as well.
At the time it wasn't obvious. In those days information traveled much more slowly, with many more intermediaries than today and was, therefore, much less reliable.
At the time it wasn't obvious. In those days information traveled much more slowly, with many more intermediaries than today and was, therefore, much less reliable.
Being reputable and being perfectly accurate all the time are different things. Listing a handful of cases where a reputable source was not accurate does not prove the source is not reputable. It's like trying to prove science is a sham by talking about phlogiston.
None can be counted on. I happen to think the NYTimes is better than most, which is why I read them more often than the rest. But you cannot count on them to not tell lies, even in the most important sort of matters, and anybody who reads any newspaper should always keep that uncertainty in mind.
> But you cannot count on them to not tell lies,
I think that's the wrong framing, at least for an organization like the NY Times.
For one, there's a difference between "a lie" and "an inaccuracy" even though most of the time (but not always!) lies are a subtype of inaccuracy. If you make a similar conflation in software development, you'd say that a team member who pushes buggy code to your repo sabotaged your project instead of saying he made a mistake.
Also there's a difference between an organization and its members. Those individuals you mentioned may have lied, but that doesn't mean the organization lied. If a disgruntled member of your team does try to sabotage your project, that doesn't mean your team is sabotaging the project.
I think that's the wrong framing, at least for an organization like the NY Times.
For one, there's a difference between "a lie" and "an inaccuracy" even though most of the time (but not always!) lies are a subtype of inaccuracy. If you make a similar conflation in software development, you'd say that a team member who pushes buggy code to your repo sabotaged your project instead of saying he made a mistake.
Also there's a difference between an organization and its members. Those individuals you mentioned may have lied, but that doesn't mean the organization lied. If a disgruntled member of your team does try to sabotage your project, that doesn't mean your team is sabotaging the project.
I encourage you to dig deeper into the background of the Walter Duranty and Judith Miller cases, in both cases the individuals were lying and their colleagues and coworkers knew they were lying or had good reason to suspect it. In the case of Walter Duranty, it took the organization several decades to admit Duranty was full of shit, long after the facts were widely know.
> I encourage you to dig deeper into the background of the Walter Duranty and Judith Miller cases, in both cases the individuals were lying and their colleagues and coworkers knew they were lying or had good reason to suspect it. In the case of Walter Duranty, it took the organization several decades to admit Duranty was full of shit, long after the facts were widely know.
Duranty did his reporting literally 90 years ago, which is several generations in the past. That case is of limited use when reasoning about the organization today.
Miller was criticized by colleagues and was eventually forced out. She seems to me kind of like a software engineer who came up with some grand design that had fundamental problems, but couldn't let the design go. That's mistaken, arguably incompetent, but not sabotage.
Duranty did his reporting literally 90 years ago, which is several generations in the past. That case is of limited use when reasoning about the organization today.
Miller was criticized by colleagues and was eventually forced out. She seems to me kind of like a software engineer who came up with some grand design that had fundamental problems, but couldn't let the design go. That's mistaken, arguably incompetent, but not sabotage.
But you CAN count on the New York Post to tell lies.
Whataboutism does not seem helpful here.
As someone who reads the NYPost regularly, I find that it's an interesting outlet. It publishes a lot of "tabloid" stuff that's worth skipping - celebrity sitings, silly videos that went virals about cats or people trying to escape the police by doing cartwheels, and outlandish headlines. But if you read certain sections (Sports, Business, Metro), the articles are written as they would be in any other outlet (with the exception that maybe the Opinion & Editorial section is more conservative leaning than other NY newspapers).
Is the "time to publication" a useful metric, when the cost is accuracy? Once something incorrect is published, it has a lot more weight than a retraction/correction.
I agree with you but I don't think that was the real essence of their criticism. It was more about releasing actual primary sources instead of a heavily edited version of their own narrative with very little of the prinary source remaining.
Tabloids aren’t new. Ever checked out the headlines in print at a grocery store check-out? If the NYPost want to be The Publication Who Cried Wolf and everything that comes with that reputation, let them.
Weren't they still able to do it on their own properties? Twitter has decided it doesn't want to amplify this kind of content, that seems reasonable.
If that’s what you need to call it to be able to justify censorship to yourself, sure.
It's not- I should have clarified in my comment. I was just showing an example timeline. The child commenter with the bit about the narrative and primary source removal is correct.
I'm not expert, but I did work in the same office as journalists from a more respectable news organisation.
News rooms are not trying to be Twitter. The goal is not to gather and disseminate information as fast as possible. They're more interested in telling a coherent story around a news event. So they might hold off while they verify or find supporting information. Who was the child? What was the outcome? Was anyone hurt?
There were multiple occasions when the organisation had information about a breaking news event but held off rushing to publish while, I assume, they verified information. One story that stuck in my mind was the murder of a woman and her children by her estranged husband. First reported as a car fire, and then later confirmed as a murder suicide. Ultimately no information was withheld, but care was taken to make sure the event was not turned into salacious clickbait by publishing rumours or rushing to be first.
This seemed counterintuitive to me, but at the same time, what do we gain by having that kind of news arrive more quickly? It's not actionable information.
News rooms are not trying to be Twitter. The goal is not to gather and disseminate information as fast as possible. They're more interested in telling a coherent story around a news event. So they might hold off while they verify or find supporting information. Who was the child? What was the outcome? Was anyone hurt?
There were multiple occasions when the organisation had information about a breaking news event but held off rushing to publish while, I assume, they verified information. One story that stuck in my mind was the murder of a woman and her children by her estranged husband. First reported as a car fire, and then later confirmed as a murder suicide. Ultimately no information was withheld, but care was taken to make sure the event was not turned into salacious clickbait by publishing rumours or rushing to be first.
This seemed counterintuitive to me, but at the same time, what do we gain by having that kind of news arrive more quickly? It's not actionable information.
A lot of people are missing your point, which is a good one - that big name news outlets rarely ever post raw, unedited videos. This is a shame in my opinion.
Thanks. Personally, I think that access to raw, unedited videos (that more often than not do exist these days) would clear up the majority of modern political controversies. Often, either the truth becomes clear, or the video disqualifies itself as being a source of news.
This still reeks of hypocrisy. For example almost any large and "reputable" outlet writes outright lies about drugs and their effects or use them to sensationalise the event (for example if there was an accident there is almost always a mention that someone had cannabis in their system even if it was obviously not related to anything). This is extremely harmful as it creates stigma for people who need cannabis or other drugs as a medicine and often they cannot access it at all because lawmaker believe what these outlets write. So when Twitter blocks someone because they think their reporting is dishonest, I don't understand why they won't block all outlets that spew lies.
There isn't a binary outcome here.
Twitter can stop an account which causes harm without being immediately required to block all accounts which may cause harm.
Twitter can stop an account which causes harm without being immediately required to block all accounts which may cause harm.
I reported many Tweets from "reputable" news outlets that have this type of propaganda and lies and literally none were addressed. That makes me think Twitter has an agenda that is not very nice.
Yet everything you list was never enough for Twitter to lock their account. But something against this political candidate was...
I'm left leaning but honestly if we want to win the bias needs to be more subtle.
I'm left leaning but honestly if we want to win the bias needs to be more subtle.
The NYT had an article about how the questionable accusations targeting Hunter Biden was supposed to be published by the Wall Street Journal. But WSJ was taking its time, skeptical of the story, and then the Post ran with it... WSJ never ran the story as was intended.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
But yeah I've seen the post basically copy and paste accusations as fact (without claiming they're facts, but not qualifying them in any way) about all sorts of things.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
But yeah I've seen the post basically copy and paste accusations as fact (without claiming they're facts, but not qualifying them in any way) about all sorts of things.
It's all headlines and nothing more. Buzzfeed and TMZ use an identical model. The fact they published the recent laptop story means they don't care at all about integrity or facts. Money is king!
We need to reinstate the fairness doctrine to restore honesty in media. The "news" we have today used to be called "entertainment" and half the people on cable news are opinionated talk show hosts if you can even stand to watch any of it.
We need to reinstate the fairness doctrine to restore honesty in media. The "news" we have today used to be called "entertainment" and half the people on cable news are opinionated talk show hosts if you can even stand to watch any of it.
I mean, CNN and WaPo have admitted to lying about Nick Sandmann, but their accounts are still there. Clearly, Twitter is not interested in whether news outlets sometimes publish fake news.
[deleted]
That is absolutely not why Twitter acted in this case, and everyone knows it.
You don't have to imply things, it's more useful to the discussion to just say it. Do say the quiet part out loud so people can actually interact with a comment like this.
Sure: Twitter is trying to tip the election in favor of Biden. When the shoe was on the other foot, they never blocked news outlets (no matter how trashy) that promoted anonymous accusations without evidence, or shared illegally-obtained information.
The laptop and its contents seem to have been obtained legally in this case, and even if the whole thing reeks of parallel construction, they are not even honestly enforcing their stated rule (which again, does not seem to apply when it benefits the other faction).
The laptop and its contents seem to have been obtained legally in this case, and even if the whole thing reeks of parallel construction, they are not even honestly enforcing their stated rule (which again, does not seem to apply when it benefits the other faction).
Further, nothing in the story has actually been disputed yet Either. That's where i'm conflicted here. If it were a flat out lie, I'd say go for it, ban it. But as is stands, No one has denied, they've even gone as far as to say they won't deny them. We've had the FBI confirm the laptop. We've had one of the business partner Confirm the contents of the email. We know that multiple investigations are going on State / Federal level. This is news worthy, regardless of what side you're on.
There's 0 chance that they block any negative controversial stories about the Trump campaign or it's related parties.
It's a foolish place to stand your ground, when the outcome is going to be far worse for all sides than if they'd just let it die off naturally. The controversy itself has now given some on the right another reason to double down on their positions. It's divisive by the nature of the action.
There's 0 chance that they block any negative controversial stories about the Trump campaign or it's related parties.
It's a foolish place to stand your ground, when the outcome is going to be far worse for all sides than if they'd just let it die off naturally. The controversy itself has now given some on the right another reason to double down on their positions. It's divisive by the nature of the action.
After the Covington stuff, isn't it a good thing they are taking more time to figure out the context around short inflammatory videos?
I didn't mention it in the original comment because I didn't want the heat, but the Covington event was actually the exact event I was thinking of. By the time I saw the fully unedited raw videos of the guy and the kid, I'd already seen dozens of memes and many official news articles/videos comparing the "Covington Kid" to anti-protestors during the Civil Rights movement. The full, unedited videos show the truth; it was a complete non-event. Totally changed my perspective on the kid and the protestor; they went from symbols of a struggle for rights to two people who happened to run into each other in Washington, D.C.
No. Unless they want to be sued, like with the Covington kid...
Nothing in your comment says the information is fake or false. In fact, the Biden campaign and his son Hunter have not denied any of the information either.
Given that Twitter has allowed people to publish anything and everything about Trump regardless of source (or lack thereof), this is a clear cut case of bias to push their preferred candidate.
A different take on the same idea, Google now adds "fact checks" when searching for videos of Biden, in his own words, describing his flip flopping position on fracking. Try it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+fracking
I'd love to know what other fact checks they've added. I can't find an explicit list. I submitted an Ask HN to see if anyone knew how to get that list. But that post was flagged as some people may feel that information is too dangerous to disclose.
Both actions are clearly driven by bias. Whether they're allowed to do it on a private platform is a separate topic. But you can't claim to be for free speech when the only speech you suppress or "clarify" is that which is negative to your candidate of choice.
Given that Twitter has allowed people to publish anything and everything about Trump regardless of source (or lack thereof), this is a clear cut case of bias to push their preferred candidate.
A different take on the same idea, Google now adds "fact checks" when searching for videos of Biden, in his own words, describing his flip flopping position on fracking. Try it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+fracking
I'd love to know what other fact checks they've added. I can't find an explicit list. I submitted an Ask HN to see if anyone knew how to get that list. But that post was flagged as some people may feel that information is too dangerous to disclose.
Both actions are clearly driven by bias. Whether they're allowed to do it on a private platform is a separate topic. But you can't claim to be for free speech when the only speech you suppress or "clarify" is that which is negative to your candidate of choice.
You're allowed free speech as long as its our free speech.
Journalistic integrity means vetting sources of “news”, especially in this day in age when so many videos are just clips out of context. I completely agree with Twitter keeping NY Post account disabled. Until they can prove to be a real news source, they are tabloid fake news. The fact they they will publish articles other news sites won’t means not that they are “The Rogue News Organization in a sea of Liberal Media”, but more “They post bullshit that’s intended to incite culture war, not report the news”.
Twitter shouldn't decide for me what I may or may not read.
Twitter doesn't decide for you what you may or may not read. I imagine you got here from some path other than Twitter. Therefore, you reading this reply to your comment comes irrespective to Twitter deciding what is allowable on their platform.
If the moderators of this site decide my comment is out of line with the standards this site tries to uphold, does this make me unable to communicate entirely? No, I'm still able to write whatever nonesense on plenty of other websites. Or I can host my own website where I can freely post whatever nonsense I choose to post. All the way up to the point where no ISP will offer me an internet connection or all the regional number organizations refuse to give me even a single IP address.
If the moderators of this site decide my comment is out of line with the standards this site tries to uphold, does this make me unable to communicate entirely? No, I'm still able to write whatever nonesense on plenty of other websites. Or I can host my own website where I can freely post whatever nonsense I choose to post. All the way up to the point where no ISP will offer me an internet connection or all the regional number organizations refuse to give me even a single IP address.
> Twitter shouldn't decide for me what I may or may not read.
Of course, but Twitter doesn't do that and never has. You are still very able to read what the New York Post writes by typing https://nypost.com/ into your browser, and Twitter's not going to stop you from doing that.
Of course, but Twitter doesn't do that and never has. You are still very able to read what the New York Post writes by typing https://nypost.com/ into your browser, and Twitter's not going to stop you from doing that.
Twitter has a 1st Amendment right to decide what you may or may not read on Twitter.
exactly, a tweet is a platform specific mode of communication that shouldn't be covered by one's 1st amendment rights. You have the right to say what you want, Twitter has a right to not let you on Twitter.
down-vote all you want but I take the same stance with liberal "news" as I do with conservative "news". News shouldn't be political. News should be factual. Observe and report, never interfere. I take the same stance with journalists reporting on BLM protests when they stand on the side of the protesters. You're going to get arrested with them, credentials or not. Journalism has now become a "Social Justice" platform and not reporting of fact.
https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-r...
Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why).
Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.
Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.
As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done.
Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply.
Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.
You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress...
Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
>You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech
Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).
Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).
Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
why should we care whether its harmful to democracy?
if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
[deleted]
> You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress...
There is a large amount of legal precedent in the US for the government being able to compel speech of private businesses, both in laws and court rulings. If you don't believe me, go look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label. But we have precedents that go much deeper than that, up to and including compelled speech that goes against the religious principles of a business's founders. There is no realistic argument for the government being unable to compel a private company like Twitter to cease censoring posts on political grounds.
There is a large amount of legal precedent in the US for the government being able to compel speech of private businesses, both in laws and court rulings. If you don't believe me, go look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label. But we have precedents that go much deeper than that, up to and including compelled speech that goes against the religious principles of a business's founders. There is no realistic argument for the government being unable to compel a private company like Twitter to cease censoring posts on political grounds.
They're not unable, it's just not how the laws are structured currently - regulation is always an option. Nutrition labels weren't required pre-1990[0], but then regulation made them required, so you can look at the current amount of social media regulation as a result of the United States' governance over the past 20 years.
0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_
0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_
Many would agree that communication platforms are essentially becoming public utilities, and should be treated as such. Twitter may only have the ability to control speech on the "platform they own", but the shockwaves caused by calculated censorship impact very far outside the walls of the platform itself.
When a platform with this type of power starts abusing it immediately before a major election, it's time to rethink the governmental protections afforded to them in order to feasibly exist.
When a platform with this type of power starts abusing it immediately before a major election, it's time to rethink the governmental protections afforded to them in order to feasibly exist.
[deleted]
I don't buy the moral legitimacy of groups of people doing wrong merely because they are recognized as a "private company" and not being legally bound to act a certain way. So,
> a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company ... is an unsustainable, doomed model
is exactly right. It's just so damn hard to pull people out of it!
> a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company ... is an unsustainable, doomed model
is exactly right. It's just so damn hard to pull people out of it!
But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.
Since this ban is helping the Biden campaign by keeping a damaging story from being spread before the election, it can be seen as an in kind campaign contribution.
And for that there are some strict laws!
If the laws actually apply for this, I have no idea...
And for that there are some strict laws!
If the laws actually apply for this, I have no idea...
Imagine how much Fox News and a hundred talk radio shows would contribute in that scenario.
I am in the camp of, once you open your company to political communication and news you are beholden to be open to all such activity as long as it is legal. You don't get to choose and the reason you don't get to choose is because filtering one view over another provides a service to the view permitted and as such is political speech and or contribution to one party over another.
As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account
As in, once you open that door it goes both ways. Twitter on purpose catered to news and political organizations and while they are free to issue a disclaimer of not supporting a message or messenger as long as its legal they should be held to account
Pretty standard for a company, for better or for worse.
Meh. Just go to the NYPost directly if you want.
We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.
We shouldn't be forcing and infringing on the freedoms of corporations to decide what they can sell/show.
Sure, but if they're going to be an editorialized platform they should be held liable for the content of each and every tweet.
Not sure what this actually means - liable for what?
They already ban tweets required by law. What other liability is there?
They already ban tweets required by law. What other liability is there?
If Twitter were held liable for user's posts they would probably ban all right-wing content since that's were most of the libel I see comes from. For example reddit tried hard to keep /r/TheDonald around but it turned out to be an impossible task. Especially in online right-wing youth culture there's a strong anything goes, ends justify the means, trolling for the lulz, strain where they find it more acceptable to spread deliberate misinformation.
Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?
GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
Ah, yeah, that's fair.
I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
"The false conclusion I jumped to is someone else's fault for giving me too little information"
That's a terrible excuse. Lack of information isn't the same as misinformation.
That's a terrible excuse. Lack of information isn't the same as misinformation.
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want:
Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power?
NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator.
Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power?
NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator.
Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not?
For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no longer some sort of vital communication platform.
For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no longer some sort of vital communication platform.
Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc.
But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their nest thermostats? What if they used smart locks on their office: could they just disable the "unlock" function on the doors?
Would anybody be supporting this?
But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their nest thermostats? What if they used smart locks on their office: could they just disable the "unlock" function on the doors?
Would anybody be supporting this?
No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online.
But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.)
Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service.
The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.
But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.)
Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service.
The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.
The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?
It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.
Just because Twitter doesn't debit your bank account doesn't mean their service is free. They're selling you to any buyer who's willing to pay, and it's a lot of buyers.
Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
If they were just a thermostat company, then yeah. They could say “we don’t provide climate control services to the GOP”, or whatever. (Contact law covers how to handle refunds for devices already purchased, etc. I’m talking about the core issue of companies being able to choose their customers)
But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with.
It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with.
It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc.
It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "public".
It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "public".
Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too.
The corporation providing the service doesn't matter, it's the how the service itself is used by the public. And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.
The corporation providing the service doesn't matter, it's the how the service itself is used by the public. And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.
Not the case.
96% of americans have a cell phone: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
22% of americans have had a twitter account: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
22% of americans have had a twitter account: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
I'm talking about social media in its entirety, not a single provider of it. Twitter/Facebook/Whatsapp have billions of users and would be treated as a single class of service.
> Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too.
Yep, and they can also terminate your service for any reason they choose.
Yep, and they can also terminate your service for any reason they choose.
I don't think this is true, and even if it were it would be something everyone except literal fascists would oppose.
This isn't true in text, but national service providers very well could terminate someone for 'violating' their acceptable use policies and, unless they make a huge stink about it that gains state-wide or nation-wide attention, nobody's going to look too deep into why you were terminated. Maybe fining a small claims case could do something about it but I wouldn't count on it.
How about a world where corporations have regulations that serve the public?
> And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.
Okay. That doesn't mean a whole lot at the moment.
The ISPs that allow you to even access Twitter at all are quite deliberately not regulated to this extent, so there's a lot of work to do before we can say that Twitter, of all things, is somehow a public utility without First Amendment rights.
Okay. That doesn't mean a whole lot at the moment.
The ISPs that allow you to even access Twitter at all are quite deliberately not regulated to this extent, so there's a lot of work to do before we can say that Twitter, of all things, is somehow a public utility without First Amendment rights.
How the "public" uses the service is irrelevant; the legal regulations are all based on what the service is.
Social media is fundamentally different from ISPs and other utilities- there are some protections and restrictions under section 230 (for now) but number of customers does not a utility make.
Social media is fundamentally different from ISPs and other utilities- there are some protections and restrictions under section 230 (for now) but number of customers does not a utility make.
Public usage is how regulations and legislation are determined. Making social media a public utility is the point of the discussion here.
No, use of public space (spectrum, running wires to homes) drives the regulation. If the wireless spectrum was unlimited, and power, tv, internet and phone lines didnt need to be run on public land to get to private homes, they wouldn't face anything like the regulation (nor be granted monopolies) like they are now.
> Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too.
Even if we agree that they are the right comparators, there's a problem for using that pair as a reference for how online service providers should be treated, since phone providers have a strong neutrality mandate and ISPs have none, so it basically provides no guidance whatsoever.
Even if we agree that they are the right comparators, there's a problem for using that pair as a reference for how online service providers should be treated, since phone providers have a strong neutrality mandate and ISPs have none, so it basically provides no guidance whatsoever.
You're talking past each other. OP was framing Twitter as a "natural monopoly":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous.
In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status.
That's how power companies work. You don't have new power grids cropping up, but the main providers are held to much stricter standards that a normal private company in terms of their quality of service and how much they can charge.
If we allow mass-scale social media to continue existing, we need these sorts of strict regulatory standards. These companies have become mad with power, and there's no way to unseat them through ordinary competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous.
In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status.
That's how power companies work. You don't have new power grids cropping up, but the main providers are held to much stricter standards that a normal private company in terms of their quality of service and how much they can charge.
If we allow mass-scale social media to continue existing, we need these sorts of strict regulatory standards. These companies have become mad with power, and there's no way to unseat them through ordinary competition.
No, that's not how power companies are other utilities work and that's not what a natural monopoly is.
A natural monopoly is one that arises due to the high costs of entering the market and other barriers to entry that make it difficult for competitors to establish a footing.
Utilities are natural monopolies because it is very expensive to place pipes, transmission lines, etc., over large geographic areas. Consequently, a company must either have large starting capital or the ability to grab a large enough portion of the market to pay for the costs of the initial infrastructure outlay.
The barrier to entry for the short form messaging market? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Any programmer can recreate the functional parts of Twitter in under a day, scaling aside. And there are already several Twitter competitors. They're simply not very popular because they're difficult to use.
A natural monopoly is one that arises due to the high costs of entering the market and other barriers to entry that make it difficult for competitors to establish a footing.
Utilities are natural monopolies because it is very expensive to place pipes, transmission lines, etc., over large geographic areas. Consequently, a company must either have large starting capital or the ability to grab a large enough portion of the market to pay for the costs of the initial infrastructure outlay.
The barrier to entry for the short form messaging market? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Any programmer can recreate the functional parts of Twitter in under a day, scaling aside. And there are already several Twitter competitors. They're simply not very popular because they're difficult to use.
Isn't that what I said? That the cost of entering the market of mass-scale social media companies is extremely high?
I wholeheartedly disagree that the cost is "nothing, nada, zilch". The network effects of having everybody using a couple of sites is what makes the cost of switching high, not the technical triviality of creating a new website.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the cost is "nothing, nada, zilch". The network effects of having everybody using a couple of sites is what makes the cost of switching high, not the technical triviality of creating a new website.
[deleted]
No, that's not at all what you said.
The cost of entering the mass-scale social media market is basically zero, since you can do that in a day with minimal cost other than a domain name and a server (or VPS or AWS/Azure account or similar), and you can scale your costs as you grow, but your costs don't grow as fast as your customer base.
A natural monopoly's costs start high, and just scales from there. It costs tens of millions for a utility just to enter a small market, and with utilities, growing may actually increase their costs (see, for example, power and water utilities).
The cost of entering the mass-scale social media market is basically zero, since you can do that in a day with minimal cost other than a domain name and a server (or VPS or AWS/Azure account or similar), and you can scale your costs as you grow, but your costs don't grow as fast as your customer base.
A natural monopoly's costs start high, and just scales from there. It costs tens of millions for a utility just to enter a small market, and with utilities, growing may actually increase their costs (see, for example, power and water utilities).
That isn't "mass-scale", because you don't have any users. Sorry, but I'm going to quote my original comment:
>The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous.
So...that is what I said, that the barrier to entering the market is enormous.
>The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous.
So...that is what I said, that the barrier to entering the market is enormous.
No, the entire history of social media has been low-cost entrants capturing market share from existing giants.
I'm definitely dating myself here, but Livejournal, Blogger, Myspace, Frienster, DailyBooth, Friendfeed, Yikyak, Snap, Vine, were all once the dominant social media website before losing to new entrants.
Facebook was started in a college dorm room. Twitter launched as an employee's side project. Instagram began with two roommates sharing an apartment. WhatsApp began as one guy.
I'm definitely dating myself here, but Livejournal, Blogger, Myspace, Frienster, DailyBooth, Friendfeed, Yikyak, Snap, Vine, were all once the dominant social media website before losing to new entrants.
Facebook was started in a college dorm room. Twitter launched as an employee's side project. Instagram began with two roommates sharing an apartment. WhatsApp began as one guy.
These success stories don’t prove that it’s feasible to create a widely used social network, just that it’s possible. And that’s a pretty obvious statement, seeing that widely used social networks exist at all. What’s important is how many failures are there?
There’s no physical issue preventing competition like with power companies, but to a social media startup, getting enough users is a similarly hard challenge as constructing a new power grid.
And you’re not actually a social network until you reach some critical mass of users. The cost of entering the market is low as you point out, but that doesn’t imply that you can realistically compete. So I think it’s fair to call social networks a natural monopoly. Even if they don’t strictly fit the definition they’re still monopolies in practice.
There’s no physical issue preventing competition like with power companies, but to a social media startup, getting enough users is a similarly hard challenge as constructing a new power grid.
And you’re not actually a social network until you reach some critical mass of users. The cost of entering the market is low as you point out, but that doesn’t imply that you can realistically compete. So I think it’s fair to call social networks a natural monopoly. Even if they don’t strictly fit the definition they’re still monopolies in practice.
We cannot compare Twitter to the situation with power companies, because Twitter does not own the only copper wires that are routed to your address.
[deleted]
Really because many government organizations have taken to twitter/social media to be the official (and in some cases only) method of public alerting and notifications around emergencies, school closing, traffic alerts, and a wide range other topics.
So if I am not allowed to access twitter, or banned from the platform then I am being banned from participating in my local government
So if it not a public service, then public organizations (like police, fire, schools, etc) should be barred from using the service
So if I am not allowed to access twitter, or banned from the platform then I am being banned from participating in my local government
So if it not a public service, then public organizations (like police, fire, schools, etc) should be barred from using the service
As someone who gets these notifications, and who never uses Twitter, I'm pretty sure this is not the case.
No, Twitter is equivalent to a store or restaurant that you can opt to enter, or opt to avoid. They're also within their general rights to disallow service to you.
They _run_ on public infrastructure, just like a store or restaurant. That should be available to all.
They _run_ on public infrastructure, just like a store or restaurant. That should be available to all.
Twitter isn't critical infrastructure.....
The difference is that Twitter ostensibly believes the NY Post was posting misinformation to Twitter. They're not disabling an unrelated service just because they don't like the Post's politics. You can disagree with Twitter's take of course, but I don't think the analogy holds.
[deleted]
Hopefully the Post would have signed a contract with their smart lock supplier that would detail the circumstances where the supplier could disable that function.
[deleted]
If it's critical infrastructure, then it should be regulated. Right?
Well, then it has to be so also from a legal standpoint.
Nationalize Twitter and Google, or declare them public utilities.
Until then, they're totally free to do what they want.
In my opinion they should have already shut down President Trump's account, regardless of the backlash they would receive. They could single-handedly eradicate a broadcast opportunity for the single person closer to a literal dictator the U.S. has ever had.
There are network and anti-trust concerns that make this problematic.
In the old days, if you thought newspapers were biased you could publish your own and it would sit on the newstand next to the other ones. That's how we got NY Post and the Daily News in NYC, etc.
But imagine if one newspaper had 100x the readership of the second one. And if it'd be impossible to start a new one because of network effects. The editor of that newspaper would have outsized power to affect elections and it would be considered threat to democracy. That's the case with Twitter.
Either Twitter stays 100% neutral, or we'll need to anti-trust the heck out of it to make sure there are a few Twitters to compete with each other (and represent different views).
In the old days, if you thought newspapers were biased you could publish your own and it would sit on the newstand next to the other ones. That's how we got NY Post and the Daily News in NYC, etc.
But imagine if one newspaper had 100x the readership of the second one. And if it'd be impossible to start a new one because of network effects. The editor of that newspaper would have outsized power to affect elections and it would be considered threat to democracy. That's the case with Twitter.
Either Twitter stays 100% neutral, or we'll need to anti-trust the heck out of it to make sure there are a few Twitters to compete with each other (and represent different views).
We live in a world where Twitter is the place to get information about official government policy (US) or emergency alerts regarding life-or-death situations (NS). If Twitter were not a common infrastructure, it should have been downright illegal to use it like one, at least for government agencies and officials. That ship has sailed long ago. We might as well try to make sure everyone has unfettered access to Twitter. Because sometimes, the alternative is literally death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#Lack_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#Lack_...
No it isn't. Personally, I'm very up to date on what is going on in the world and I've never had a Twitter account and maybe go to the site once a month. Pretty much the only time I even see Twitter is when it's linked in news articles.
It's completely possible to get almost the exact same information you get from Twitter elsewhere. Even in the link you provided, it says that they used Twitter as well as Facebook to broadcast their message.
Twitter is not a utility. It's one of many news aggregators and it's completely possible to live without it.
It's completely possible to get almost the exact same information you get from Twitter elsewhere. Even in the link you provided, it says that they used Twitter as well as Facebook to broadcast their message.
Twitter is not a utility. It's one of many news aggregators and it's completely possible to live without it.
What?
I have never used Twitter in any serious capacity.
There are plenty of ways to get all this information and thinking that Twitter is the de-facto place to get emergency life or death situation notifications is downright laughable.
As far as I can tell, I haven't gotten swept up by a tornado yet because I don't have Twitter to see severe storm alerts.
If your only source of news or alerts is a single service run by a corporation that isn't beholden to anyone but themselves, that's your problem.
I have never used Twitter in any serious capacity.
There are plenty of ways to get all this information and thinking that Twitter is the de-facto place to get emergency life or death situation notifications is downright laughable.
As far as I can tell, I haven't gotten swept up by a tornado yet because I don't have Twitter to see severe storm alerts.
If your only source of news or alerts is a single service run by a corporation that isn't beholden to anyone but themselves, that's your problem.
Your NS example shows why Twitter isn't common infrastructure and wasn't an effective method for getting information out in life-or-death situations:
> .. many questions were raised about why Nova Scotia failed to use Alert Ready, Canada's mandatory emergency population warning system, to warn the public about the attacks but instead chose to use social media platforms Twitter and Facebook to provide updates, RCMP officials said they had been dealing with an unfolding situation and details were being updated frequently. However, the areas affected had poor cellular Internet service and were mostly populated by seniors who might not have used social media. Relatives of the victims pointed out that the use of Alert Ready could have saved lives.
I stopped using FB 8 years ago because the attention-seeking design was making me depressed, always wanting to check was was going on.
If we say that Twitter and FB are the places to get information about official government policy then 1) we need to let minors under the age of 13 have Twitter account (not allowed under the current ToS), 2) we need to have some way to ensure that personal information is not sent outside the country (currently allowed in the current ToS) or sold in any form - basically, the same protections as if you were to go to a government-hosted site - and 3) we need some way so people can see only essential government information, without advertising or viewing other sources designed around "engagement".
I don't think Twitter wants to take on this role.
> .. many questions were raised about why Nova Scotia failed to use Alert Ready, Canada's mandatory emergency population warning system, to warn the public about the attacks but instead chose to use social media platforms Twitter and Facebook to provide updates, RCMP officials said they had been dealing with an unfolding situation and details were being updated frequently. However, the areas affected had poor cellular Internet service and were mostly populated by seniors who might not have used social media. Relatives of the victims pointed out that the use of Alert Ready could have saved lives.
I stopped using FB 8 years ago because the attention-seeking design was making me depressed, always wanting to check was was going on.
If we say that Twitter and FB are the places to get information about official government policy then 1) we need to let minors under the age of 13 have Twitter account (not allowed under the current ToS), 2) we need to have some way to ensure that personal information is not sent outside the country (currently allowed in the current ToS) or sold in any form - basically, the same protections as if you were to go to a government-hosted site - and 3) we need some way so people can see only essential government information, without advertising or viewing other sources designed around "engagement".
I don't think Twitter wants to take on this role.
Ok, what if the only grocery store in your town did it? Or the only gas station or the only doctor's office?
> Twitter is not a utility
It's effectively a utility.
I'd say one could fashion a reasonable criterion based on extent of use by anybody + extent of use by organizations + extent of use by news media. Beyond some level, a platform is a utility (albeit not necessarily defined by law to be one).
It's effectively a utility.
I'd say one could fashion a reasonable criterion based on extent of use by anybody + extent of use by organizations + extent of use by news media. Beyond some level, a platform is a utility (albeit not necessarily defined by law to be one).
I'd disagree on the fact alone that the President of the United States essentially needs to use Twitter in order to communicate with the general public without his words being twisted by an EXTREMELY biased media. (Fox news isn't even 100% on his side)
Except platforms are the internet in any meaningful sense of the word. In the 80s people literally thought that when you and I wanted to exchange data over the net, I would connect to your computer or vice versa. Even setting aside centralization pressures resulting from economy of scale, NAT killed this by essentially making everyone's PC act as a client and never a server, at least without extra non-user friendly work
Projects like IPFS and urbit are trying to change this but the FAANG economy of scale combined with the sheer user friendliness of centralized platforms makes me very bearish
Projects like IPFS and urbit are trying to change this but the FAANG economy of scale combined with the sheer user friendliness of centralized platforms makes me very bearish
[deleted]
> "The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no longer some sort of vital communication platform"
The usage and network effects by the public is what determines the ubiquity and utility of the platform.
Just because it's served by private entities doesn't change the fact that social media is very much on the verge of becoming public utility. Twitter's own CEO claims that social media is a human right.
The usage and network effects by the public is what determines the ubiquity and utility of the platform.
Just because it's served by private entities doesn't change the fact that social media is very much on the verge of becoming public utility. Twitter's own CEO claims that social media is a human right.
> Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure.
Great, then they should not be subject to section 230 protection, which protects them from liability from user-generated content. If they are a private publishing site, they should be entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities of such sites, as well established in the common law.
Great, then they should not be subject to section 230 protection, which protects them from liability from user-generated content. If they are a private publishing site, they should be entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities of such sites, as well established in the common law.
That makes zero sense; 230 wasn't written to be exclusive to utilities or common infrastructure. It has always applied to private publishing of third party content, so long as the content isn't editorialized by thr publisher.
Not everything that isn't a common carrier is a traditional publisher. Bars, for example.
Power companies are regulated monopolies. There are no competitors.
Twitter is in no way even close to the only way to publish something. It is no where near as difficult to publish on a different platform than it is to generate your own power.
If an ISP was cutting off the NyPost, I would have issues with that. If they had their domain name seized, I would have an issue with that. If other ISPs blocked network routes to their site, I would have issues with that.
I don't have an issue with Twitter blocking them. It just isn't the same.
Twitter is in no way even close to the only way to publish something. It is no where near as difficult to publish on a different platform than it is to generate your own power.
If an ISP was cutting off the NyPost, I would have issues with that. If they had their domain name seized, I would have an issue with that. If other ISPs blocked network routes to their site, I would have issues with that.
I don't have an issue with Twitter blocking them. It just isn't the same.
The mere act of making a message accessible from an internet connection is only 1% of what "publishing" is, and it's the only reason Google, Facebook, and Twitter make billions. Otherwise, the whole Geocities-type model where everyone has their own private website would be successful today.
The reason these technologies are successful is that 99% of "publishing" is getting messages to the eyeballs that want to see those messages. The essence of their monopoly is that everyone's content they want to see is on that particular platform, both political and apolitical. It is difficult to follow people who get excommunicated from platforms, and the whole reason anyone uses these platforms is to avoid this difficulty.
The reason these technologies are successful is that 99% of "publishing" is getting messages to the eyeballs that want to see those messages. The essence of their monopoly is that everyone's content they want to see is on that particular platform, both political and apolitical. It is difficult to follow people who get excommunicated from platforms, and the whole reason anyone uses these platforms is to avoid this difficulty.
Wasn't this even MORE the case before things like Twitter and Facebook?
Were people making arguments that Simon and Schuster were wrong and censoring if they decided not to publish a book? There are a LOT of books that have been written that no 'major' publisher would touch.
Yeah, that means you have to go and publish the book yourself, and print your own copies. And it means that most bookstores probably won't carry your book, and you won't reach nearly the audience that you would if you had a major publisher.
No one argues that the publishers are wrong for doing that.
Were people making arguments that Simon and Schuster were wrong and censoring if they decided not to publish a book? There are a LOT of books that have been written that no 'major' publisher would touch.
Yeah, that means you have to go and publish the book yourself, and print your own copies. And it means that most bookstores probably won't carry your book, and you won't reach nearly the audience that you would if you had a major publisher.
No one argues that the publishers are wrong for doing that.
You're suggesting that the message you just typed out has the same weight as printing a few thousand copies of a manifesto for someone and shipping that book across the country to be put in bookstores and eat the cost if it doesn't sell. In no reasonable way does the "book publisher model" resemble the "social media model".
The "social media model" is far closer to discussions you would have in a coffee shop or at a dinner party. Starbucks doesn't need to listen in on your conversations and kick you out if they're not disturbing anyone else.
The "social media model" is far closer to discussions you would have in a coffee shop or at a dinner party. Starbucks doesn't need to listen in on your conversations and kick you out if they're not disturbing anyone else.
Sure, but Twitter conversations DO disturb other people.
Starbucks absolutely has the right (and would exercise it) to kick a group of people out if they were, say, conducting a KKK meeting and talking so everyone in the Starbucks could hear them.
Starbucks absolutely has the right (and would exercise it) to kick a group of people out if they were, say, conducting a KKK meeting and talking so everyone in the Starbucks could hear them.
First of all, we're not even talking about the censoring of terrorists, dictators, and extremist groups, which Twitter actually has allowed to persist on the platform in the past (e.g. Nicolas Maduro and ISIL). The current censorship at hand is a mainstream news outlet being blocked from releasing a damaging political story less than 2 weeks before the election. This is banana republic-type corruption.
Secondly, Twitter primarily serves content to those people who want it. It's what their algorithms are trained to do. The argument that the New York Post's article is disturbing and thus should be removed is easily used to justify any amount of authoritarian social manipulation. After all, everyone's actions eventually affect me, so I should be able to control all aspects of how they think, right?
Secondly, Twitter primarily serves content to those people who want it. It's what their algorithms are trained to do. The argument that the New York Post's article is disturbing and thus should be removed is easily used to justify any amount of authoritarian social manipulation. After all, everyone's actions eventually affect me, so I should be able to control all aspects of how they think, right?
>Power companies are regulated monopolies. There are no competitors.
The funny (sad) thing is that these utilities are almost easier to work around Twitter in this case.
Power company cuts you off? Buy a generator, no big deal.
Town turns off your water. IBC totes are cheap.
Comcast terminates your account? Verizon is happy to pay you money and if they aren't where you are then you can suck it up and by satellite.
If your a media business and Twitter/Facebook won't let you advertise and breaks links to your content you're basically screwed. There are no real alternatives because that's wher your users are.
The funny (sad) thing is that these utilities are almost easier to work around Twitter in this case.
Power company cuts you off? Buy a generator, no big deal.
Town turns off your water. IBC totes are cheap.
Comcast terminates your account? Verizon is happy to pay you money and if they aren't where you are then you can suck it up and by satellite.
If your a media business and Twitter/Facebook won't let you advertise and breaks links to your content you're basically screwed. There are no real alternatives because that's wher your users are.
Buying a generator is as poor replacement for grid power as starting a WordPress blog. If you want to live an off grid life in the woods you might as well blog like it’s 2004.
You can rent a big gen-set (like what they use for temp power to large outdoor events, construction sites, etc) for decently cheap (cheap in terms of business expenses). Should be able to get you by long enough for a judge to tell the power company to quit dicking around.
A very small handful of companies have a stranglehold over the lion's share of all global communications: Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter.
So maybe Twitter isn't quite a monopoly on its own, but the consolidation of control over information and data distribution into the hands of a very small number of organizations has worrying implications for how we think about censorship and freedom of speech.
So maybe Twitter isn't quite a monopoly on its own, but the consolidation of control over information and data distribution into the hands of a very small number of organizations has worrying implications for how we think about censorship and freedom of speech.
Those companies have a MUCH weaker stranglehold over global communications than the media companies of 30 years ago. I can publish a website and have it viewed by (almost) anyone in the world without going through any of those 4 companies.
If you had a video or book or article 30 years ago, you couldn't even distribute it yourself around the world without the partnership of a major media company. It is way easier now.
Did people consider this a danger to free speech in the 90s? I certainly don't remember it that way. No one was worried that you couldn't get a main stream publisher to publish your crackpot theories, or that no cable tv station would air your crazy rants. No, you were forced to self publish, and deal with the fact that your audience was a lot smaller than if you could get a major publisher/media company to publish your work.
The NyPost still has a website, and anyone can still go to see it. It is way more accessible than self-published work was 30 years ago.
If you had a video or book or article 30 years ago, you couldn't even distribute it yourself around the world without the partnership of a major media company. It is way easier now.
Did people consider this a danger to free speech in the 90s? I certainly don't remember it that way. No one was worried that you couldn't get a main stream publisher to publish your crackpot theories, or that no cable tv station would air your crazy rants. No, you were forced to self publish, and deal with the fact that your audience was a lot smaller than if you could get a major publisher/media company to publish your work.
The NyPost still has a website, and anyone can still go to see it. It is way more accessible than self-published work was 30 years ago.
It's interesting to see how quickly Silicon Valley culture has changed over the past 10 years from one of free speech absolutism to "benevolent censorship". The people so vociferously clamoring about the nightmare-hellscape of a world without Net-Neutrality are now telling us that a handful of major corporations actively and blatantly censoring speech is no cause for concern.
Net Neutrality is different. No one is arguing that it is ok to block NyPost at a network level. Free speech does not mean a free platform.
Net Neutrality is not really that different. These corporations just want to be the ones doing the blocking instead of allowing ISPs to do it.
You honestly don't see a difference between net neutrality and platform content moderation?
This is like not seeing the difference between allowing anyone to drive on a public road verse forcing everyone to pick up all hitchhikers.
This is like not seeing the difference between allowing anyone to drive on a public road verse forcing everyone to pick up all hitchhikers.
If a very small number of platforms control essentially all of the content people are exposed to, the distinction starts to blur.
Sure I see a difference, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as you seem to. These corporations wield an immense amount of power, and although they don't (individually) have the ability to completely silence anyone, neither do ISPs.
I think the concern about the amount of power they wield is legitimate, and I think we, as a society, need to have a serious look at what that power means.
I just feel that the issue of blocking a particular site is tangental to the real issue of the power these companies have. I am much more worried about the way their algorithms work for choosing who sees what, but that is not a concern based on 'free speech'
I just feel that the issue of blocking a particular site is tangental to the real issue of the power these companies have. I am much more worried about the way their algorithms work for choosing who sees what, but that is not a concern based on 'free speech'
I think people show their true colors when emotional, and many blame social media, misinformation, etc as why Trump won in 2016; whereas before they were praising how savvy Obama was to use social media, etc.
So if you think politicians utilizing social media to reach the people is ok, you also have to think it is ok for a foreign nation to use fake social media accounts to influence an election?
Social media is the tool, and some uses are ok and some aren't. I am not 'showing my true color' when I condemn someone who uses a knife to murder someone, even though I praised a master chef's use of a knife to cut food just the day before.
Social media is the tool, and some uses are ok and some aren't. I am not 'showing my true color' when I condemn someone who uses a knife to murder someone, even though I praised a master chef's use of a knife to cut food just the day before.
I, as the hypothetical Twitter CEO, choosing to silence or remove an account isn't a "big F" Free Speech issue.
The government telling me, the hypothetical Twitter CEO, that I am legally mandated to publish your tweet, be it actually misinformed or just plain unpopular, or face asset seizure and jail time as a consequnce -- that is an _actual_, real infringement on free speech.
It just turns out that a lot of those SV libertarian free speech absolutists were actually partisan authoritarian hacks that are now abusing the notion of free speech in the current online discourse, so that the government will step in and mandate publishing their particular flavor speech. The people arguing against Twitter having the ability to silence and ban accounts (for any reason) are arguing for a Propaganda-class of speech that must be repeated by all who have any influence.
The government telling me, the hypothetical Twitter CEO, that I am legally mandated to publish your tweet, be it actually misinformed or just plain unpopular, or face asset seizure and jail time as a consequnce -- that is an _actual_, real infringement on free speech.
It just turns out that a lot of those SV libertarian free speech absolutists were actually partisan authoritarian hacks that are now abusing the notion of free speech in the current online discourse, so that the government will step in and mandate publishing their particular flavor speech. The people arguing against Twitter having the ability to silence and ban accounts (for any reason) are arguing for a Propaganda-class of speech that must be repeated by all who have any influence.
>There are no competitors.
What an absurd statement to make on hacker news of all places, where every minor movement of tesla/solar city is reported as breaking news. Or in a world where more and more people are going "off grid" and making their own electricity.
The power company is the easiest/most convenient way to power my home. It is definitely not the only way to do it.
What an absurd statement to make on hacker news of all places, where every minor movement of tesla/solar city is reported as breaking news. Or in a world where more and more people are going "off grid" and making their own electricity.
The power company is the easiest/most convenient way to power my home. It is definitely not the only way to do it.
A better analogy: Twitter is like Fedex refusing to deliver your packages based on your politics, not the electrical utility company.
>>Twitter is like Fedex refusing to deliver your packages (...)
In case you don't know, FedEx or pretty much any delivery company are free to refuse shipping your parcels.
A cursory googling is enough to allow you to discover fedex's shipping guidelines.
In case you don't know, FedEx or pretty much any delivery company are free to refuse shipping your parcels.
A cursory googling is enough to allow you to discover fedex's shipping guidelines.
Except those are pretty transparent and non-political.
The only thing that makes Twitter's action as political is that we have a radical segment of the US's population which is hell-bent on supporting a smear campaign against a candidate they feel threatened about even though they are well aware the campaign is based on false or misleading info likely force-fed by a totalitarian regime.
And to make matters worse, this radical group doesn't even care if the information is available or not, they only care about spreading it as far and wide as it's conceivable and attack anyone that they deem reactionary, including social networks that flag posts as having unsubstantiated information.
And to make matters worse, this radical group doesn't even care if the information is available or not, they only care about spreading it as far and wide as it's conceivable and attack anyone that they deem reactionary, including social networks that flag posts as having unsubstantiated information.
Haha. Glad you are talking about the political party other than the one I'm supporting.
The right solution is that people should move off of Twitter and leave that wretched garbage platform in the dust. I wrote this the other day, but people have already pointed out tons of problems with it and I tend to agree with those issues: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/the-solution-to-big-tech-isnt...
The reality is they have massive market share. Keep in mind, Facebook and Twitter prevented the spread of this story via PRIVATE DIRECT MESSAGES!
Imagine if AT&T or Verizon started blocking texts because of their content. You can say, "Well don't use Messenger" and you need to realize, a lot of us don't have each other's phone numbers any more. For my international friends, I might only have a Messenger or Hangouts connection.
And this is where the rub comes into play. At what point is one of these platforms so big that they become a regular communication utility? If you were paying for the service, that's one thing, but in the case of Faceobook/Twitter, they make money from you in more abstract ways (adverts).
People can still go to NY Post directly, and because we have such good freedoms in the US, we can route around the censorship to some degree. But at some point, this also becomes election interference.
Politicians don't understand the Internet enough to get reforms right. (Remember Stevens and the series of tubes?). 230 Reforms would probably need:
a) Remove the algo Timeline entirely. Results should be the way they were in the old days: Reverse Chronological. (or baring that, inboxes with the default search order of names being alphabetical).
b) Don't block any direct messages unless it's clearly malware or illegal. (This can get super tricky. Look at the sad state of e-mail).
The real solution is to get people to use more diverse platforms, platforms people pay for (even $1/month) and that distribute/federate data rather than centralize it.
There are technological solutions around this. The problem is people and adoption.
The reality is they have massive market share. Keep in mind, Facebook and Twitter prevented the spread of this story via PRIVATE DIRECT MESSAGES!
Imagine if AT&T or Verizon started blocking texts because of their content. You can say, "Well don't use Messenger" and you need to realize, a lot of us don't have each other's phone numbers any more. For my international friends, I might only have a Messenger or Hangouts connection.
And this is where the rub comes into play. At what point is one of these platforms so big that they become a regular communication utility? If you were paying for the service, that's one thing, but in the case of Faceobook/Twitter, they make money from you in more abstract ways (adverts).
People can still go to NY Post directly, and because we have such good freedoms in the US, we can route around the censorship to some degree. But at some point, this also becomes election interference.
Politicians don't understand the Internet enough to get reforms right. (Remember Stevens and the series of tubes?). 230 Reforms would probably need:
a) Remove the algo Timeline entirely. Results should be the way they were in the old days: Reverse Chronological. (or baring that, inboxes with the default search order of names being alphabetical).
b) Don't block any direct messages unless it's clearly malware or illegal. (This can get super tricky. Look at the sad state of e-mail).
The real solution is to get people to use more diverse platforms, platforms people pay for (even $1/month) and that distribute/federate data rather than centralize it.
There are technological solutions around this. The problem is people and adoption.
To that I say: campaign to get Twitter considered a utility, then you can regulate it as one.
Ok change the analogy. Should Verizon be able to disconnect your calls and block text messages if they don't like the content?
Everyone here is arguing with the analogy and not with the thrust of OPs argument.
Everyone here is arguing with the analogy and not with the thrust of OPs argument.
Of course not, specifically because electrical utilities are granted de facto monopolies, and for that reason are either heavily regulated, or else publicly owned and operated, and because electricity is a modern safety requirement.
That is wildly, incomparably different than a single social media website.
That is wildly, incomparably different than a single social media website.
A utility company, is not a social media platform and they are regulated differently as you would expect.
This reminds me of the time I talked to an engineering manager and he told me twitter was the electricity the internet runs on. I thought that was ridiculous, but this is taking it to a new level, where twitter is equivalent to electricity.
This reminds me of the time I talked to an engineering manager and he told me twitter was the electricity the internet runs on. I thought that was ridiculous, but this is taking it to a new level, where twitter is equivalent to electricity.
Well.. that would be a breach of contract (providing NYP paid their utility bills) and they could be sued.
With Twitter et al, their service is free and "you are the product", so.. they can ban you whenever with no recourse at all.
With Twitter et al, their service is free and "you are the product", so.. they can ban you whenever with no recourse at all.
Exactly. The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness), and one of the consequences of being dependent on an external platform for your traffic is that you are subject to their contract. If you don't like the rules, you find or build another platform (and put in the money and effort to make it work).
This is basically the NYPost crying because it wants free stuff with no strings attached.
This is basically the NYPost crying because it wants free stuff with no strings attached.
> The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness),
I'm curious what exactly you think they could have done to not end up here. I'm not aware of Twitter even offering a paid service that they could use, and network effects mean that failing to publish on Twitter just means that fewer people will see your stuff.
I'm curious what exactly you think they could have done to not end up here. I'm not aware of Twitter even offering a paid service that they could use, and network effects mean that failing to publish on Twitter just means that fewer people will see your stuff.
Most news outlets used to have RSS feeds which, once upon a time before it was removed from a lot of big websites (such as news outlets), allowed lots of people to get a feed of what was published. It worked for a lot of years and, if kept up and published, it could probably have given Twitter a run for its money. You could share the feeds you followed or even build public feeds from that (there are stil a bunch of them, mostly named after planets, for very niche things), so you could have a network effect.
Twitter doesn't have a paid service for users (it has paid access to their API, just in case somebody on this site still had doubts about what really is their core business), I was just making a (probably poorly phrased) example.
Twitter doesn't have a paid service for users (it has paid access to their API, just in case somebody on this site still had doubts about what really is their core business), I was just making a (probably poorly phrased) example.
As far as I'm aware, the NYPost isn't a customer of Twitter. They don't have a transactional relationship. So this isn't even the case of a business refusing service.
[deleted]
Electrical power shouldn't be privately controlled.
There's nothing wrong with it being privately controlled. It was privately invented and developed, after all.
How does it matter whether it was developed publicly, or privately? Deregulation in the late 90s led to the Enron scandal, so I think there are clear reasons why not to be privately owned.
Right, and government officials were in charge of the Flint Water crisis. And government officials have abused the 4th amendment vis-a-vis the Patriot act. And governments have lied about WMDs to spend trillions on war. I guess the only difference between the private and public sector is that when a private company fucks up and gets caught, people actually lose money and go to jail.
I don't concede that private companies are more accountable. My point wasn't that governments are great at running utilities, merely that "turn it over to the private markets" is not the solution that many people seem to think.
I agree with you, but that's a truly horrible reason.
Maybe not, but it is.
It may be privately owned, but regulatory control still exists, and prevents the scenario you're talking about.
To the extent that the regulatory scheme fails, that is a problem when and where it happens. But I've never heard of a power company refusing to provide electricity to a customer due to political disagreements. At least not in the U.S.
To the extent that the regulatory scheme fails, that is a problem when and where it happens. But I've never heard of a power company refusing to provide electricity to a customer due to political disagreements. At least not in the U.S.
in many places it is, but at the same time the government controls the price
I kinda expect my power company to not connect my house to some dodgy power plant that's putting out 155VAC at 47.2 HZ.
Not only are utilities regulated fairly closely by the government as a result of being common infrastructure, the NY Post has its own newspaper and website and drives plenty of traffic that way.
A better analogy would be a service that runs on he electricity such as advertisement boards.
Ideally, private ownership of societally critical ownership wouldn't be legal. But America is a capitalist country, and Twitter owns their platform and has free speech by law.
And the equivocation of a tabloid to a utility company is just completely absurd...
And the equivocation of a tabloid to a utility company is just completely absurd...
[deleted]
Watch them change their opinion when there are unproven articles published about Trump by left wing media.
Is it just me, or is there always a post in these types of discussions that say "it's a private company, it's not censorship"?
Since the discussion is polarized by virtue of politics nowadays, it’s worth remembering that a private company can censor their content, but it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize them.
Recognizing their freedom doesn’t insulate them from criticism. Freedom/regulatory regime != morality.
FWIW I'm fully supportive of company autonomy, and I also like expressing criticism when their actions don't line up with my values.
Recognizing their freedom doesn’t insulate them from criticism. Freedom/regulatory regime != morality.
FWIW I'm fully supportive of company autonomy, and I also like expressing criticism when their actions don't line up with my values.
Honestly, I see this kind of action as good. The sooner the population at large realizes that Big Social aren't neutral players in the marketplace of ideas, the better. We need decentralized solutions, ASAP, and the only way that's going to happen is when normal people start caring.
> We need decentralized solutions
TBH maybe we just need to move on from social media instead.
TBH maybe we just need to move on from social media instead.
It like the printing press, more wide spread availablity of content distribution is not going to go away.
For all its flaws abilty produce content cheaply has created value too.
For all its flaws abilty produce content cheaply has created value too.
The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved (media companies and individuals wanting information), and so much inertia to keep using services like Facebook long after the user even likes the service. Some kind of regulatory pressure will be absolutely necessary.
> The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved
It seems to me that having a respected publisher call out another publisher for having tried to peddle bullshit is an important contribution to reduce that asymmetry.
It seems to me that having a respected publisher call out another publisher for having tried to peddle bullshit is an important contribution to reduce that asymmetry.
Any marketplace is dependent on the people acting in good faith and in favour of the marketplace. It is naive to think that marketplaces are immune to bad actors and that bad actors should be allowed to thrive.
There's a reason there are basically no "freedom of speech, marketplace of ideas" sites that a) don't have a single ounce of moderation done by people and b) are popular.
There's a reason there are basically no "freedom of speech, marketplace of ideas" sites that a) don't have a single ounce of moderation done by people and b) are popular.
I don't see how decentralization is feasible. The current technological trends are all towards more centralization.
Advocating for decentralization feels like presenting filter bubbles and echo chambers as a positive feature.
No, it means advocating for independent methods of verification that aren’t controlled by biased, unelected, unaccountable corporate entities.
Wouldn't decentralization just give people the option to choose from several different biased, unelected, unaccountable corporate entities?
Sure, but then people have options, and entities are forced to be competitive.
But critically, the entities are not competing for the same audience. People are not choosing between Fox News and MSNBC, people are choosing between Fox News and Brietbart. While it would seem like there is an opportunity for a service that caters to the middle, in reality I think people largely prefer to have their world views and priors confirmed rather than challenged.
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity? How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
> Do you think that fake news websites (websites that intentionally post falsehoods to drive traffic) should be allowed to post on social media with impunity?
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes.
> How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective.
> Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes.
> How is that workable? Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
The track record of restricting information from people because you feel like you're smarter than they are is not great. It's also impractically subjective.
> Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
Unless it's directly inciting violence, yes.
By this standard, Facebook must allow everything that you can find on Pornhub and Liveleak. Plus much of the material published in Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire. Telling people "crusaders should die" and "here's how to make a bomb from over the counter materials" aren't direct incitements to violence. Reddit could never have banned r/WatchPeopleDie or r/jailbait. (Although it could be hard to spot any actual jailbait in r/jailbait once torrents of MLM schemes and cryptocurrency scams flood every subreddit.)
The First Amendment protects a lot. That's why back in 2014/2015 American legislators who were unhappy with Islamist terrorist propaganda circulating on social media called on social media companies to do something instead of passing a law. A law that says "it's illegal to publish photos of dead Americans or their allies with gloating commentary" wouldn't survive the First Amendment. But social platforms could and did deplatform groups cheering for ISIS, to bipartisan approval.
You may sincerely believe that only direct incitements to violence should be suppressed on social media. I don't think that there is legislative support for that state of affairs, though. Not even among the conservative legislators who are currently the most critical of social media moderation decisions. If legislators managed to pass a law that said "social media platforms cannot suppress anything that is legal to publish under the First Amendment," I think that they would regret that choice a month after seeing the consequences.
By this standard, Facebook must allow everything that you can find on Pornhub and Liveleak. Plus much of the material published in Al Qaeda's magazine Inspire. Telling people "crusaders should die" and "here's how to make a bomb from over the counter materials" aren't direct incitements to violence. Reddit could never have banned r/WatchPeopleDie or r/jailbait. (Although it could be hard to spot any actual jailbait in r/jailbait once torrents of MLM schemes and cryptocurrency scams flood every subreddit.)
The First Amendment protects a lot. That's why back in 2014/2015 American legislators who were unhappy with Islamist terrorist propaganda circulating on social media called on social media companies to do something instead of passing a law. A law that says "it's illegal to publish photos of dead Americans or their allies with gloating commentary" wouldn't survive the First Amendment. But social platforms could and did deplatform groups cheering for ISIS, to bipartisan approval.
You may sincerely believe that only direct incitements to violence should be suppressed on social media. I don't think that there is legislative support for that state of affairs, though. Not even among the conservative legislators who are currently the most critical of social media moderation decisions. If legislators managed to pass a law that said "social media platforms cannot suppress anything that is legal to publish under the First Amendment," I think that they would regret that choice a month after seeing the consequences.
Incredibly well put. I do truly wish that education taught debate these days.
One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position.
I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.
One of the things required in debate classes is to argue for the other sides position.
I have found that most people I meet these days have never learned this ability to see things with the shoes on the other feet.
I feel like freedom of speech is about opinions and freedom to criticize. Not freedom to poison society with fake information passed off as real. Why would our founding fathers... Or anyone, want that?
> I consider your suggestion of encouraging clamping down on free speech too dangerous to discuss. By your logic should I be able to prevent you from expressing it?
On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.
On your own website or forum, absolutely. It's your property. GP has no right to use it that you do not expressly grant.
Does that include CNN posting fake news stories about russian collusion and russian blackmailing for 3 years? The fact that the standard is meant to be applied only one side side means there is no standard.
The idea that we must have an entity of superior wisdom to determine who aught to talk to the masses is timeless and a recurring theme that get reinvented once every a few decades. The reason why it always get repelled in the end is that while there is always benefits from eliminating the wrong information, the entity with superior wisdom to artfully determine what is wrong and what is right is fiction.
Twitter isn't saying the information is false. Twitter is saying the information was "hacked".
The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained.
If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.
The truth matters more than how the truth was obtained.
If you don't your dirty laundry aired, don't have dirty laundry.
If the laptop was abandoned as claimed, it wasn't even hacked. Twitter does not have a leg to stand on. They were just reacting without evidence to try to help Biden.
The NY Post didn’t do that, did they?
That is absolutely true, but this specific story doesnt seem to be fake.
I dont personally care if Hunter Biden used his dad's name to make money (that is par for the course these days), but Twitter and Facebook suppressed the story basically saying because they were not able to verify it, even though they have clearly allowed a lot of fake news to float around their platforms in the past.
I dont personally care if Hunter Biden used his dad's name to make money (that is par for the course these days), but Twitter and Facebook suppressed the story basically saying because they were not able to verify it, even though they have clearly allowed a lot of fake news to float around their platforms in the past.
So which is it, fake news or private information?
> Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
> Many people cannot distinguish fake news from legitimate sources of information.
Well it's hard for the New York Times cough Judith Miller cough, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Or on the side that Twitter thinks is the good side.
We are on the right side of history - progress always is. People like me are much more trustworthy because we're not motivated by greed, but for the desire for a better world.
History has no shortage of horrific atrocities carried out by people with a genuine desire to remake a better world.
And vice versa, the side that has been Conservative continue to be on the wrong side of history over abs over again, yet never fail to say the other side is to blame.
Gay rights Women rights Liberty
Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.
Gay rights Women rights Liberty
Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.
You might want to look up which party was more supportive of the 19th amendment and check which party supported ending slavery.
"On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting."
"On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting."
I don't think they mentioned a party anywhere in the parent comment. They were simply talking about the conservative vs progressive side of a debate or policy change
Around the same time as the 19th amendment was passed. Eugenics was a very "progressive idea"
While not a one to one match with current politics, the parties largely swapped demographics and southern Republicans today would have been Democrats at that time.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Counterexample: Conservatives opposed Communism.
You seem very certain of that, which is incredibly frightening.
On my first read, I assumed that they forgot to type the /s, but I think you're right and this was meant to be serious, which is... disconcerting.
"My idea of progress will always be correct, because I am a good person and people who disagree with me are not."
Every tyrant and dictator in history thought he was on the side of "progess" and was building a better world.
Some really thought they were. And some said they were, even if they didn't really believe it.
I'm going to take a stab and say this is meant satirically? Are we invoking Poe's law here?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Is that a quote from Hitler? I honestly can't tell.
If you think locking the account was a political decision, you're paranoid and wrong. They broke the rules on publishing hacked materials. They openly did this despite the rules.
You want them exempted from the rules on political grounds, which is a problem.
You want them exempted from the rules on political grounds, which is a problem.
Such nonsense. Everyone knows that if someone published "hacked" materials which were damaging to Trump then Twitter would laugh you out of the room if you suggested they block it.
This article has been suppressed for one reason and one reason alone: because it's potentially damaging to Joe Biden's election campaign. I know it, you know it, Twitter knows, everybody else knows, so stop pretending that this is about anything else because no-one is fooled.
This article has been suppressed for one reason and one reason alone: because it's potentially damaging to Joe Biden's election campaign. I know it, you know it, Twitter knows, everybody else knows, so stop pretending that this is about anything else because no-one is fooled.
"hacked materials" but according to the story the laptop was now the property of the shop owner after Hunter Biden allegedly left it for service without paying and never came to pick it up. Most of those kinds of shops have a 90ish day policy that you sign and after that its theirs. That would not be hacked material.
Also, if the policy on hacked material was enforced; wouldn't the NYT story on the tax returns hacked/leaked from Trump also apply? Most of the controversy here is that Twitter has selectively taken action, and now that they changed their policy, they still wont reactivate the account even though its no longer in violation until the NYP deletes the original violating tweet.
Also, if the policy on hacked material was enforced; wouldn't the NYT story on the tax returns hacked/leaked from Trump also apply? Most of the controversy here is that Twitter has selectively taken action, and now that they changed their policy, they still wont reactivate the account even though its no longer in violation until the NYP deletes the original violating tweet.
But there is no evidence anything was hacked.
If you had to put it into numbers, how would you say the user base of HackerNews breaks down in terms of right-leaning versus left-leaning? I think that's where it all stems from.
If you lean right, you don't want to see this level of censorship.
If you don't, you're fine with it because it's pretty much exclusively in the direction of Trump.
If you lean right, you don't want to see this level of censorship.
If you don't, you're fine with it because it's pretty much exclusively in the direction of Trump.
Locking the account was the right thing to do
Also I don't know why you think people on the left think big companies are on their side
We know they're not. And that they unfairly censor liberal stories.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sensitive-claims-bias...
But for once they seem to be trying to do the right thing, and avoid spreading propoganda
Also I don't know why you think people on the left think big companies are on their side
We know they're not. And that they unfairly censor liberal stories.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sensitive-claims-bias...
But for once they seem to be trying to do the right thing, and avoid spreading propoganda
What a hot mess.
I am imagining those years of looking at terrible National Enquirer headlines at store checkouts. This kind of terrible reporting as always existed, but for some reason (luckily I guess) they never crossed over into national discourse the way that stories do online.
I never begrudged the store for carrying them and selling them. If Wal-Mart suddenly felt the need to arbitrate on the accuracy of every periodical they sold, I'm not sure if I would feel better or worse.
I also don't know how to handle the people who are saying the story is fake or terribly reported, but we have a right to be misinformed if we want to be.
I am imagining those years of looking at terrible National Enquirer headlines at store checkouts. This kind of terrible reporting as always existed, but for some reason (luckily I guess) they never crossed over into national discourse the way that stories do online.
I never begrudged the store for carrying them and selling them. If Wal-Mart suddenly felt the need to arbitrate on the accuracy of every periodical they sold, I'm not sure if I would feel better or worse.
I also don't know how to handle the people who are saying the story is fake or terribly reported, but we have a right to be misinformed if we want to be.
It's all about how it's packaged. In the grocery store under a gossip magazine about who cheated on who, and people roll their eyes. The same lie being shared by everyone from your cousins to the president of the united states tends to be seen a little different to the eyes of people who prefer to defer their critical thinking capacities to whoever is the loudest and most charismatic.
Very well put. Social media wraps garbage with a false sense of legitimacy that's not found on checkout aisle shelves, and that's a big problem when such a large number of users lack either the skill or intention required to filter.
This is a good comparison to bring up, because most people would not have any problem with the "Clinton had sex with aliens???" tabloids disappearing from the Walmart checkout aisles.
Tabloid essentially make up stores, so I would say they fall into the "fiction" category.
This story is essentially Russian propaganda designed to destabilize the US election. It's a whole different category of content.
This story is essentially Russian propaganda designed to destabilize the US election. It's a whole different category of content.
The Director of National Intelligence (director for all US Intel Agencies) has said it is not Russian disinformation.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016
https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016
And has caught flak from the intelligence community for making that determination prematurely: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/10/intelligence-expe...
He is also hamfistedly talking up Iranian election interference solely to downplay Russian election interference: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security/u-s...
He is also hamfistedly talking up Iranian election interference solely to downplay Russian election interference: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security/u-s...
Flak from former intelligence community who have no involvement in the situation. According to the people who have the laptop, and the current intel heads, it is not a Russian op. It’s pretty obvious that the laptop is legit at this point. Not even Hunter or Joe deny it.
[deleted]
Seeing those trash magazines at stores always makes me think less of the store owner. At best, they provide no value. At worst, they prey on the under-educated and spread dangerous misinformation.
The hot mess is the story in question has been verified by multiple sources and is credible. What this means is Twitter is obviously trying to sway the outcome of an election by making editorial decisions on which information it allows on it's, supposedly, neutral platform.
Because it's making editorial decisions of what news to allow on it's platform it should be treated as any other news organization and it should be open to liable law suits.
Congress needs to enforce 230 and make Twitter choose; either 8kun or NYT, pick one.
Because it's making editorial decisions of what news to allow on it's platform it should be treated as any other news organization and it should be open to liable law suits.
Congress needs to enforce 230 and make Twitter choose; either 8kun or NYT, pick one.
> has been verified by multiple sources and is credible
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
The Post still hasn't deleted the offending tweet. Those are the rules: on a first violation of posting someone's personal information without permission you get your account locked until you delete the tweet.
Is it what they finally settled on? because we've heard "we don't relay unverified news" and "we don't relay hacked information" as well.
Either way it's ridiculous. Most news is unverified. And the NY Post article wasn't hacked information.
[deleted]
But Twitter has officially stated it was a mistake to block posting of the link to the Post's story.
So why is the Post's account still locked?
More generally, it does not appear Twitter is impartially enforcing standards against leaking private information. There are no problems posting stories to Trump's illegally-leaked tax returns, or Melania's phone calls, for example.
So why is the Post's account still locked?
More generally, it does not appear Twitter is impartially enforcing standards against leaking private information. There are no problems posting stories to Trump's illegally-leaked tax returns, or Melania's phone calls, for example.
How do they delete the tweet if they're locked out of the account?
There's a separate flow where they've sent the NYPost an email detailing why their account has been suspended with a link to the Tweet in question and a link saying "Delete this Tweet". As soon as they delete it, their account will be reinstated.
They've chosen not to delete for either "moral" reasons or "moral outrage" reasons, but the ball is in their court.
They've chosen not to delete for either "moral" reasons or "moral outrage" reasons, but the ball is in their court.
Don't think the "the ball is in their court" thing applies when you don't really have a choice.
I love the fact New York Post are leaving their account locked.
It is a better advertisement for the story, and worse for Twitter.
The irony of a giant company like Twitter falling for the Streisand effect is rich.
It is a better advertisement for the story, and worse for Twitter.
The irony of a giant company like Twitter falling for the Streisand effect is rich.
[deleted]
Stoped reading after the author made an equivalent comparison between NYT and Brietbart...I mean, you're not fooling anyone with the "un-biased, unaffiliated voter just searching for the truth" shtick. It's 2020 buddy, we see what you're doing.
OP here, the statement mentioning Breitbart alongside the NYT isn't meant to make them equivalent. It's meant to point out that I follow media outlets with major influence for their respective audience. Breitbart is unfortunately a favorite for Republican audiences alongside Fox News, which is why they're mentioned. It's important to track media outlets that have large influence over Democrat and Republican audiences to be aware of what the parties will use as "evidence" to their position and the downfall of those sources.
true brietbart and fox are influential over their readers, bu t they cannot be compared to responsible publishers in respect to their commitment to the truth, and therefore do not deserve respect of those of us who are committed to the truth.
[deleted]
[deleted]
bodono(2)
This doesn't look all that surprising after Twitter blocked the account and all web links to Bret Weinstein's Articles of Unity initiative 1.5 months ago without any explanation, and it still remains blocked.
Personally, if [company] wants to filter or censor, go for it if and only if a) they disclose it and b) I can turn it off.
We have a model for this already, it's called "safe search"
When you filter without disclosing, you're stealing my agency and creating a situation for near-undetectable abuse.
We have a model for this already, it's called "safe search"
When you filter without disclosing, you're stealing my agency and creating a situation for near-undetectable abuse.
If Twitter wants to be a publisher, fine. Just stop sheltering them under Section 230. Make them fully liable for what they publish.
The whole point of section 230 was to let internet sites remove user supplied content they find objectionable without that making them liable for user supplied content that they do not remove.
You say that as if that's not what Twitter wants. Jack Dorsey and Twitter's chief(?) legal counsel went on Joe Rogan and openly argued that Twitter is a publisher. They expressly waived Section 230 protection and thoroughly explained that their users do no publish content on Twitter, but merely provide Twitter with content that Twitter may choose to edit and publish as Twitter sees fit. They said Twitter makes thoughtful editorial decisions and chooses what content to publish.
I don't agree. I think that's a lie. Twitter is a common-carrier and should not be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what Twitter is saying. Twitter very openly claiming to be a "publisher." Twitter wants you to say that.
I don't agree. I think that's a lie. Twitter is a common-carrier and should not be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what Twitter is saying. Twitter very openly claiming to be a "publisher." Twitter wants you to say that.
The big problem with Twitter and Facebook is they have massive incentive to encourage lightning fast viral content. But there are big societal problems with viral content which contains lies and incites violence (or voter harassment, etc).
So now they are trying to blame the individual sources which is effective to some extent except when the sources are hugely popular with certain segments of society.
IMO the real solution is to massively slow all viral content's spread. That of course would damage the platforms, particularly if their competitors don't implement similar limits. So all the platforms are playing this kind of cat-and-mouse game and doing a piecemeal approach fraught with ethical and potential legal issues.
So now they are trying to blame the individual sources which is effective to some extent except when the sources are hugely popular with certain segments of society.
IMO the real solution is to massively slow all viral content's spread. That of course would damage the platforms, particularly if their competitors don't implement similar limits. So all the platforms are playing this kind of cat-and-mouse game and doing a piecemeal approach fraught with ethical and potential legal issues.
This is unacceptable in any democracy or a so-called public platform. In Latin America there's many newspapers, compared to the US, there are newspapers that still publish very bloody images in the back-page (drug cartels hits, accidents, etc), others which publish naked girls, others about anarchism, religion, local news/events mostly free. As a citizen you understand the spectrum of what quality journalism is vs the kind of crap that comes in all those publications mentioned before. Government or official journalist groups don't block them, just because the information is mainly false. This is a basic value in a democracy. Problem I see is that online platforms want to fight disinformation as a problem when is not a problem is the way the world operates. Humans have something called intelligence and people can distinguish a quality publication vs another one and even if not, is ok to read all types of things (as long as they are within the law). Problem is that Google and Twitter just publish what fits in their agenda. (Check PragerU case vs Youtube)
Old maxim:
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
(due to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, biographer of Voltaire)
new maxim:
> I disapprove of what you say, and will defend through your profile's death against your being able to say it.
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
(due to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, biographer of Voltaire)
new maxim:
> I disapprove of what you say, and will defend through your profile's death against your being able to say it.
So just visit nypost.com, don't rely on twitter for your news.
Exactly.
Although to be fair, I dont think Twitter has figured out that it is now becoming “cool” and free advertising to be blocked by them.
It is turning into a form of rebellion and “fighting against the man”. It is a badge of honor for a large segment of society right now.
Basically, being banned by Twitter is becoming free advertising.
I mean, look a this post by OP.
Although to be fair, I dont think Twitter has figured out that it is now becoming “cool” and free advertising to be blocked by them.
It is turning into a form of rebellion and “fighting against the man”. It is a badge of honor for a large segment of society right now.
Basically, being banned by Twitter is becoming free advertising.
I mean, look a this post by OP.
But, citizens of Detroit, OCP is a private company, they can do what they want!
Twitter has not been granted a law enforcement monopoly (nor any sort of monopoly) by the US government. If you want me to buy that for a dollar, your going to have to come up with a better analogy.
That’s their normal courses of action for account freezes.
They programmatically freeze your account with the message “Twitter freezes accounts that violate Twitter Rules.” which criteria is just a /dev/urandom that apparently any average script kiddies can trigger at will.
They don’t bother dealing with your complaints, but don’t bother with ban evasions either, so people either keep sending complaints until it reaches a human, or just create alternate accounts and try to spread your word that this alt is now your main account. You have to have built a network or position in a group that can handle these transitions.
Isn’t that how Twitter works? That won’t change without some social media account rights movement and legislation.
They programmatically freeze your account with the message “Twitter freezes accounts that violate Twitter Rules.” which criteria is just a /dev/urandom that apparently any average script kiddies can trigger at will.
They don’t bother dealing with your complaints, but don’t bother with ban evasions either, so people either keep sending complaints until it reaches a human, or just create alternate accounts and try to spread your word that this alt is now your main account. You have to have built a network or position in a group that can handle these transitions.
Isn’t that how Twitter works? That won’t change without some social media account rights movement and legislation.
The NYPost’s account was not frozen programmatically.
And if they want to unfreeze their account they can do so by deleting the tweet that was manually flagged. They have not done so because they want to draw attention to themselves as an alleged victim of bias against conservative media outlets.
Edit: is there a reason my factually sound comment is being downvoted?
And if they want to unfreeze their account they can do so by deleting the tweet that was manually flagged. They have not done so because they want to draw attention to themselves as an alleged victim of bias against conservative media outlets.
Edit: is there a reason my factually sound comment is being downvoted?
Apparently unverified and unreleased tax returns are important for the public interest, but direct evidence of high-ranking US politician’s family member receiving a highly paid position without prior credentials is not of concern to the American public.
There has been plenty of widely reported, direct evidence of the latter, it's not even a matter of dispute. The NYP piece was not 'direct evidence' of that. This is a pretty unserious piece of analysis, if you can call it that.
There has been plenty of widely reported, direct evidence of the latter, it's not even a matter of dispute. The NYP piece was not 'direct evidence' of that. This is a pretty unserious piece of analysis, if you can call it that.
> You can publish tax returns without exposing your sources
There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.
There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.
Moderation on Facebook and Twitter can be solved by letting us choose our own moderators and moderation rules.
Twitter has a toggle for obscene material. Give us a toggle for misinformation.
Aether does this. You can choose your own moderator.
https://getaether.net/
Twitter has a toggle for obscene material. Give us a toggle for misinformation.
Aether does this. You can choose your own moderator.
https://getaether.net/
Twitter should be careful as they curate more and more content. If you start curating content so much, at one point people will start expecting that from you and you will be liable for way much content than they can handle.
I for one cannot wait for Dorsey and his crew to get a taste of their own medicine, since it doesn't matter if I disagree with GOP (let's face it, this is again a right vs left issue), I still believe they have a right to free speech.
I for one cannot wait for Dorsey and his crew to get a taste of their own medicine, since it doesn't matter if I disagree with GOP (let's face it, this is again a right vs left issue), I still believe they have a right to free speech.
Here's the NY Post on Twitter's update to their own hacked materials rule, which suggests that NY Post is not in violation of Twitter's updated policies: https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materia...
As a reminder, there are numerous past instances where Twitter did not apply the same policies that were used to shut down NY Post: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax...
This selective application of policy is evidence of Twitter's bias, which I assume results from the bias of their leadership team and employee base. A company this big, which this much influence, cannot be trusted to operate the digital public square for an entire nation, let alone the world. It is a threat to speech, since the reach of these platforms is such that speech effectively doesn't exist if it isn't on these platforms. We need competing platforms badly, but it is hard to challenge the first-mover advantage of network effects of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Perhaps we simply need to instead regulate them so that they do not deplatform/censor content that does not break the law.
As a reminder, there are numerous past instances where Twitter did not apply the same policies that were used to shut down NY Post: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax...
This selective application of policy is evidence of Twitter's bias, which I assume results from the bias of their leadership team and employee base. A company this big, which this much influence, cannot be trusted to operate the digital public square for an entire nation, let alone the world. It is a threat to speech, since the reach of these platforms is such that speech effectively doesn't exist if it isn't on these platforms. We need competing platforms badly, but it is hard to challenge the first-mover advantage of network effects of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Perhaps we simply need to instead regulate them so that they do not deplatform/censor content that does not break the law.
This is fine - they are going to make an example out of Twitter, continuing to keep the Post’s account locked plays right into it. My guess is that we’ll see a direct sanction against Twitter, and some sort of legislation that will indirectly penalize the other big tech companies by increasing their liabilities.
[deleted]
There seems to be a pervasive fear of covering topics that would influence the election which is rooted in the 2016 WikiLeaks releases.
Obviously in this instance, there are political components in the reporting, but there are also undeniably components of truth as well.
A healthy journalistic environment would dissect the facts from many angles and leave readers more informed. However, this recent trend of topic censoring adds confusion to the discussion while at the same time sowing distrust of media institutions. That is to say: it creates the precise environment in which an alternative reality can thrive.
My biggest concern is that it will culminate in the president claiming victory next week, and the discussion of it in the media will be inherently incomplete and untrustworthy. That would be a real pickle for our country moving forward together.
Edit: the irony of downvoting this take to 0 without responding is hilarious.
Obviously in this instance, there are political components in the reporting, but there are also undeniably components of truth as well.
A healthy journalistic environment would dissect the facts from many angles and leave readers more informed. However, this recent trend of topic censoring adds confusion to the discussion while at the same time sowing distrust of media institutions. That is to say: it creates the precise environment in which an alternative reality can thrive.
My biggest concern is that it will culminate in the president claiming victory next week, and the discussion of it in the media will be inherently incomplete and untrustworthy. That would be a real pickle for our country moving forward together.
Edit: the irony of downvoting this take to 0 without responding is hilarious.
Nothing's stopping the New York Post from adopting the ActivityPub ecosystem.
It's fake news pretending to be real news. All social media platforms should do a better job blocking disinformation like this.
That said, all they need to do is delete the fake news Twitter asked them to, yet they won't. Why?
That said, all they need to do is delete the fake news Twitter asked them to, yet they won't. Why?
Except it isn’t fake news. The fact that you think it is, is a symptom of a huge problem.
I'll probably get down voted for pointing this out but neither Hunter or Joe Biden have denied those files are legit. And Biden's lawyer hasn't denied he called and tried to get the files back.
None of the reports I've seen casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the files have offered any proof they are not legit.
I think it's fair to say the messengers (Rudy and Bannon) are certainly motivated by personal and political gain but I don't think they're stupid enough to knowingly try to pass off forged documents to smear the Bidens.
So, with all that in mind I do find it queer that most all of the left leaning "News" organizations have focused on discrediting the legitimacy of the files without having any real evidence at all of them being forged or altered and for the most part I've not seen them reporting on what's in the files or alleged to be in them.
None of the reports I've seen casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the files have offered any proof they are not legit.
I think it's fair to say the messengers (Rudy and Bannon) are certainly motivated by personal and political gain but I don't think they're stupid enough to knowingly try to pass off forged documents to smear the Bidens.
So, with all that in mind I do find it queer that most all of the left leaning "News" organizations have focused on discrediting the legitimacy of the files without having any real evidence at all of them being forged or altered and for the most part I've not seen them reporting on what's in the files or alleged to be in them.
I bet it's unlocked after the election
So many posts in here that don't expressly praise twabber for being our moral arbiter are grayed out.
It seems to work for me now: https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1316437892122710022
Their page loads but they cannot access their account to make new tweets until they delete that post.
Twitter has not unlocked the New York Post's Twitter account because the New York Post has refused to delete six tweets.
The New York Post can recover their Twitter account at any time by deleting those tweets.
The New York Post can recover their Twitter account at any time by deleting those tweets.
Why is New York Post big deal?
Chilling Effect to let all know what will happen to them, if they don't follow the Business Party.
Well well well, if these aren't the consequences of their own actions
Large tech companies like Twitter and Facebook and media alike have suddenly come up with all sorts of new standards to justify blocking or not reporting the Hunter Biden documents. I find it grotesque and completely inappropriate. Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel.
From Mikhail Bakunin:
> Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to restrict it on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction.
Despite the intentions of these companies, I find it fairly evident that censorship usually just reinforces the status quo. It's a terrible tactic for forward progress.
From Mikhail Bakunin:
> Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to restrict it on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction.
Despite the intentions of these companies, I find it fairly evident that censorship usually just reinforces the status quo. It's a terrible tactic for forward progress.
" Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel."
That is exactly what the fake Hunter Biden story is though. Blatant GOP propaganda released at a strategic moment to assist the re-election of Trump.
That is exactly what the fake Hunter Biden story is though. Blatant GOP propaganda released at a strategic moment to assist the re-election of Trump.
Twitter wants revenge for the embarrassment it faced.
Before anyone brings up Section 230, let's all get up to speed on what it means, from an expert, Ken White @ Popehat:
"Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen"
https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...
TL;DR: No, moderating their site even in an egregiously, blatantly biased way won't make Twitter a "publisher" or make them lose Section 230 protections
"Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen"
https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...
TL;DR: No, moderating their site even in an egregiously, blatantly biased way won't make Twitter a "publisher" or make them lose Section 230 protections
Good, they shouldn't have tried to spread garbage, unvalidated information in order to try and undermine Biden's campaign. I guess they'll just have to stick to the fox news crowd and Trump followers.
So what happens when Biden probably wins?
Will any criticism of our sitting President be punishable by banning from social media?
Will any criticism of our sitting President be punishable by banning from social media?
Has criticism of the current president been banned?
More like mandated.
But, I repeat, what happens when it's "our side" in power? Would leaks about malfeasance under his administration be "improperly sourced information"?
But, I repeat, what happens when it's "our side" in power? Would leaks about malfeasance under his administration be "improperly sourced information"?
If it seems like it's mandated, but it's not, then it's because a lot of people disagree(strongly) with the guy.
[deleted]
Unlikely. Remember, there were 10 separate investigations into Benghazi, for instance, and Twitter didn’t block any of them from being posted.
No reason to suppose they will act differently for Biden.
Their action here seems to be more out of fear of a pre-election bombshell similar to the 2016 “emails” that turned out to a nothingburger.
No reason to suppose they will act differently for Biden.
Their action here seems to be more out of fear of a pre-election bombshell similar to the 2016 “emails” that turned out to a nothingburger.
That was then, this is now. They are acting differently for Biden.
Twitter's setting themselves up as the arbiter of what constitutes "properly sourced" information. What happens if there's another Snowden-type leak under Biden? Hacked materials, gathered without consent, potentially slanderous, definitely hurting the 'good guys' in this news cycle...
Twitter's setting themselves up as the arbiter of what constitutes "properly sourced" information. What happens if there's another Snowden-type leak under Biden? Hacked materials, gathered without consent, potentially slanderous, definitely hurting the 'good guys' in this news cycle...
they aren't acting differently for Biden. They are acting responsibly to the American public. Do you support the destruction of truth free_rms?
>They are acting differently for Biden.
The difference is that right-wing trash usually comes directly from Trump, then republished in the tabloids. We've seen that get reined in a little in annotating his worst tweets and FB posts, but don't pretend there's an equivalence between their public communications.
The difference is that right-wing trash usually comes directly from Trump, then republished in the tabloids. We've seen that get reined in a little in annotating his worst tweets and FB posts, but don't pretend there's an equivalence between their public communications.
Wasn't this all about the publishing of Hunter Biden's personal information? A violation of Twitter's privacy policy, that they have always enforced. And yes, they have enforced it against journalists posting newsworthy information deleterious to Trump.
"Twitter also said the Post article contained images that included personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, which is against the social network's rules. "
Weird seeing disinfo get upvoted on Hacker News of all places.
"Twitter also said the Post article contained images that included personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, which is against the social network's rules. "
Weird seeing disinfo get upvoted on Hacker News of all places.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/15/21516729/facebook-twitte...
"7. Twitter’s decision was, at least, more clearly explained. The site has rules against publishing hacked information, it’s used these rules to ban links before, and copying personal files from a laptop without permission — if that’s indeed how they were obtained — arguably falls under them. Twitter later elaborated on its decision, saying the Post story included “personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.”
"7. Twitter’s decision was, at least, more clearly explained. The site has rules against publishing hacked information, it’s used these rules to ban links before, and copying personal files from a laptop without permission — if that’s indeed how they were obtained — arguably falls under them. Twitter later elaborated on its decision, saying the Post story included “personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-hacked-mater...
"Twitter said the article was in violation of its hacked material policy. The company clarified that it was banning links to the article because it contained images of hacked material with personal and private information."
"Twitter said the article was in violation of its hacked material policy. The company clarified that it was banning links to the article because it contained images of hacked material with personal and private information."
Haha, immediately downvoted, with no comments provided.
You're downvoted because it wasn't hacked information.
My point is that that is not the reason for the account suspension. Twitter's policy is very clear and equally enforced! Here is a short video from a reporter that got a suspension for posting private info in a news article, and had to delete the post before getting unsuspended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU
It would seem to make this case very clear. Right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU
It would seem to make this case very clear. Right?
A who with 800 views versus the new york times. It's really not as clear as you want it to be. Now, at the same time I think the NYT should be able to publish this.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=...
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=...
The amount of someone's taxes isn't listed in Twitter's privacy policy. Whereas, phone numbers and email addresses are explicityly listed. The policy also makes clear its most important logic:
"Our primary aim is to protect individuals from coming to physical harm as a result of their information being shared ..."
"Our primary aim is to protect individuals from coming to physical harm as a result of their information being shared ..."
dang threatened to turf me from HN because I paraphrased Masha Gessen's views on Trump, which is too political and/or troll-y for HN. This is fine, it's his turf and he can chuck me or anyone else out whenever he feels like it.
Since people here think Twitter is in the wrong, my question is when do I get these protections on HN? Do I have to implement them on forums I run? How big does a company have to get before they have to implement these protections? Who oversees and enforces these things? How is "big" defined anyway? After all, HN is already bigger than Twitter was at some point. Do we use MAUs, DAUs? Number of words/day, etc?
Since people here think Twitter is in the wrong, my question is when do I get these protections on HN? Do I have to implement them on forums I run? How big does a company have to get before they have to implement these protections? Who oversees and enforces these things? How is "big" defined anyway? After all, HN is already bigger than Twitter was at some point. Do we use MAUs, DAUs? Number of words/day, etc?
The outrage over this move is so disingenuous. Reputable news outlets deemed this story to lack credibility, including the NY Post's more reputable (but still conservative, pro Trump!) sister publication, WSJ.
It's not the NY Post's inherent right to inject misinformation into elections.
It's not the NY Post's inherent right to inject misinformation into elections.
NY Post aka Rupert Murdoch.
I’m reminded by the stories in 2016 on how the Pope has endorsed Donald Trump. Was it true? Not in the slightest. And yet these stories got millions of impressions. Enabling the spread of harmful, false, foreign-planted propaganda to spread like a cancer in our democracy is worth taking a moral stand over. Actors that propagate such falsehoods have earned their punishment.
Equivocation in this thread to NYTimes publishing on Trump tax returns boggles the mind, and shows the sorry state of 2020. It’s reminiscent of how Trump redefined “fake news”—a phenomena associated almost exclusively with right-wing falsehoods masquerading as news—to mean “facts that are so damning of me that I construct a reality-distortion field to blind my followers”. I am dismayed by how many commenters here seemingly abandon objective Truth and descend into the anarchy of textual equivocation.
Equivocation in this thread to NYTimes publishing on Trump tax returns boggles the mind, and shows the sorry state of 2020. It’s reminiscent of how Trump redefined “fake news”—a phenomena associated almost exclusively with right-wing falsehoods masquerading as news—to mean “facts that are so damning of me that I construct a reality-distortion field to blind my followers”. I am dismayed by how many commenters here seemingly abandon objective Truth and descend into the anarchy of textual equivocation.
Great, but what does that have to do with the laptop, which came from Delaware and not Russia?
You can’t spout a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian spies and then rail on about objective truth.
You can’t spout a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian spies and then rail on about objective truth.
I was specifically referring to the Pope story in that case. I have no idea if the Hunter Biden laptop is actually real, but our default assumption should be skepticism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-bid...
Here is an interesting study on NYTimes and fake news:
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump....
It makes the case that:
1) Adults in America saw hardly any fake news stories (on average one per person, massively dwarfed by real news and political ads) 2) Main Stream Media were far more "to blame", focusing on scandal instead of policy. They give an example of the NY times ran more front page stories on Hillary's emails in 10 days, than they ever ran on Trump/Hillary policy comparisons.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump....
It makes the case that:
1) Adults in America saw hardly any fake news stories (on average one per person, massively dwarfed by real news and political ads) 2) Main Stream Media were far more "to blame", focusing on scandal instead of policy. They give an example of the NY times ran more front page stories on Hillary's emails in 10 days, than they ever ran on Trump/Hillary policy comparisons.
Well the fact is the NY Times story is probably accurate and the NY Post story is extremely suspect.
Twitter made a journalistic decision not to spread trash, possibly from Russia, that could have a real impact on our election result. Tough call, but the right call. If twitter sees itself as having some sort of moderator role than it has to make these judgement calls.
Other outlets didn't amplify the Hunter Biden laptop story either. Even conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal decided it was too sketchy to spread.
Twitter is trying to avoid being a platform for conspiracy theories and foreign intelligence agencies. It has to act.
Twitter made a journalistic decision not to spread trash, possibly from Russia, that could have a real impact on our election result. Tough call, but the right call. If twitter sees itself as having some sort of moderator role than it has to make these judgement calls.
Other outlets didn't amplify the Hunter Biden laptop story either. Even conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal decided it was too sketchy to spread.
Twitter is trying to avoid being a platform for conspiracy theories and foreign intelligence agencies. It has to act.
I appreciate that it is a tough call, but being "the right call" ultimately depends on whether the merits and sourcing of the story. If it turns out that the story is true, and it didn't come from any foreign source, and stalling on the story has a real impact on our election (going other way), then I would hope that these sources would all agree that they made the wrong call... that their fear of failing to act has caused them to act when they shouldn't have.
It would maybe be more understandable if the Director of National Intelligence hadn't made the statement he did [1], which was only a few days after the incident. Why wouldn't Twitter unlock their account then?
So unless there is a huge conspiracy that you have evidence of where the DNI is straight up lying to everyone, I think it's fair to say that it's not misinformation from foreign parties.
[1] "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, which purportedly show Joe Biden had involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings, are “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”... "He continued: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”
https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134...
So unless there is a huge conspiracy that you have evidence of where the DNI is straight up lying to everyone, I think it's fair to say that it's not misinformation from foreign parties.
[1] "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, which purportedly show Joe Biden had involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings, are “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”... "He continued: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”
https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134...
Ah yes, no less of an authority than the unimpeachably qualified John Ratcliffe.
Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal.
But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it.
Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They weren't expecting that.
But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it.
Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They weren't expecting that.
All I'm doing is providing a quote from a government employee who is directly involved in the investigation. I don't know how else one can judge the incident other than from people directly involved in the investigation and by the contents of what has been released.
I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to?
Stating that the NY Post story "is very suspect" isn't an evidence-based reason to lock their account permanently. In fact, there's a fine number of controversies around the NYT over the years, but I wouldn't support them being blocked from Twitter for any of those reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to?
Stating that the NY Post story "is very suspect" isn't an evidence-based reason to lock their account permanently. In fact, there's a fine number of controversies around the NYT over the years, but I wouldn't support them being blocked from Twitter for any of those reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
Well if you actually read the article and didn't find cause for concern, then I doubt a link will help, but here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe_(American_polit...
Here is a nice detailed account on why/how the WSJ decided not to run with the Biden narrative that Trump/Giuliani/Bannon were peddling: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
Here is a nice detailed account on why/how the WSJ decided not to run with the Biden narrative that Trump/Giuliani/Bannon were peddling: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
A quote from a partisan hack willing to undermine US national security to back up Trump
> Ratcliffe is well known for criticizing the FBI and the special counsel investigation as being biased against Trump. Ratcliffe has also alleged that Russian interference may have benefited Trump's 2016 rival candidate Hillary Clinton more than it benefited Trump. American intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller have maintained that Russia interfered to help Trump. A week before Trump's announcement, Ratcliffe had argued that the special counsel investigation put Trump "below the law" because it declined to exonerate Trump. Later, Ratcliffe claimed on Fox News that the special counsel investigation's report was not written by special counsel Robert Mueller, but by "Hillary Clinton’s de facto legal team".[63][8]
Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, which is historically considered relatively nonpartisan.[64] Some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[65] However, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[66][67] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Ratcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be "blind loyalty" to Trump, noting that he has promoted some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and has called for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[68][63] Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe's appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[5][69] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would in effect be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would then be expected to tell him only what he wants to hear.[70] They stressed the need for intelligence to be "candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president".[8]
> Ratcliffe is well known for criticizing the FBI and the special counsel investigation as being biased against Trump. Ratcliffe has also alleged that Russian interference may have benefited Trump's 2016 rival candidate Hillary Clinton more than it benefited Trump. American intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller have maintained that Russia interfered to help Trump. A week before Trump's announcement, Ratcliffe had argued that the special counsel investigation put Trump "below the law" because it declined to exonerate Trump. Later, Ratcliffe claimed on Fox News that the special counsel investigation's report was not written by special counsel Robert Mueller, but by "Hillary Clinton’s de facto legal team".[63][8]
Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, which is historically considered relatively nonpartisan.[64] Some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[65] However, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[66][67] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Ratcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be "blind loyalty" to Trump, noting that he has promoted some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and has called for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[68][63] Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe's appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[5][69] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would in effect be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would then be expected to tell him only what he wants to hear.[70] They stressed the need for intelligence to be "candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president".[8]
The amount of election meddling done by Twitter/Google & Facebook this year will go down in history, and not in a good way.
I'm in favor of twitter banning links until the New York Post blacks out the email addresses in its pictures. That sort of thing is not necessary for the story and lots of trolls reading them will simply destroy them. It looks like inciting harassment to me instead of press free speech.
Twitters censorship just serves to further polarize and divide people.
As the right bails on twitter and goes to pure conservative echo chambers and the left stays in their leftist echo chambers... any shared interactions are lost.
Even though it's their right as a private company...its truly a shame that Twitter is acting like this.
As the right bails on twitter and goes to pure conservative echo chambers and the left stays in their leftist echo chambers... any shared interactions are lost.
Even though it's their right as a private company...its truly a shame that Twitter is acting like this.
> As the right bails on twitter
For what it's worth, I've stopped commenting on HackerNews because any even moderately pro-Trump opinion is met by the downvote brigade.
In my opinion, interacting with strangers online is just a recipe for a bad time.
I'd cease social media entirely, but I'm not allowed to be social out in the real world anymore, and work is too boring to stay focused for an entire work day.
For what it's worth, I've stopped commenting on HackerNews because any even moderately pro-Trump opinion is met by the downvote brigade.
In my opinion, interacting with strangers online is just a recipe for a bad time.
I'd cease social media entirely, but I'm not allowed to be social out in the real world anymore, and work is too boring to stay focused for an entire work day.
I'm very centrist so I respect and support aspects of both sides. I don't think the extreme left realizes it but they're just as fanatical as the right.
I've had your same experiences on hacker news at times. It's a down vote brigade for anything counter to the progressive narrative whether it's Trump or Covid or Global Warming or other progressive ideas.
It's a great site though and I have had some great conversations and learned a lot as long as you steer clear of the progressive agenda.
Reddit is way worse. It makes hacker news look like The Wall Street Journal.
There's a theory called horseshoe theory that claims that the fanatical left and right have more in common with each other than they do centrists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
I've had your same experiences on hacker news at times. It's a down vote brigade for anything counter to the progressive narrative whether it's Trump or Covid or Global Warming or other progressive ideas.
It's a great site though and I have had some great conversations and learned a lot as long as you steer clear of the progressive agenda.
Reddit is way worse. It makes hacker news look like The Wall Street Journal.
There's a theory called horseshoe theory that claims that the fanatical left and right have more in common with each other than they do centrists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
If a faction of society that breeds on lies decides to self-isolate and/or act in a way to get pushed out of the mainstream, that shouldn't be a controversial action. The faction does it to themselves.
I appreciate your opinions.
This isn't a small fringe group.
The right is almost 50% of the country.
The fact that you're demonizing such a large group instead of attempting to understand them reveals a little of your fanaticism that you may not even be aware of.
This isn't a small fringe group.
The right is almost 50% of the country.
The fact that you're demonizing such a large group instead of attempting to understand them reveals a little of your fanaticism that you may not even be aware of.
I mean, isn't it good when they uniformly apply policies against sharing illicitly obtained private content?
Should Twitter have blocked all the accounts sharing the Panama Papers?
In a hypothetical alternate world in which individuals / organizations were publishing the raw Panama Papers? Yes, I would think their accounts should get banned.
Fortunately, as with the Trump tax returns, the journalists handling the Panama Papers did not engage in such unscrupulous behavior.
Fortunately, as with the Trump tax returns, the journalists handling the Panama Papers did not engage in such unscrupulous behavior.
Pretty sure the NY Post did not post raw data dumps of the laptops. Though many people on the left were clamoring for them to dump all the data to enable the emails to be verified.
Also, many used the absence of raw data to cast doubt on the authenticity of the information released by the NY Post.
Also, many used the absence of raw data to cast doubt on the authenticity of the information released by the NY Post.
They published private pictures and screenshots of private emails.
And there are easy ways to establish authenticity without publishing raw data e.g. providing third party journalists with access to the data.
And there are easy ways to establish authenticity without publishing raw data e.g. providing third party journalists with access to the data.
The keyword not being exercised here is "uniformly"
If the laptop became property of the repair shop, how would that be illicitly obtained?
I don't think that owning the hardware means you own or can publish personal data contained on the hardware.
Perhaps Hunter Biden should send out some DMCA claims. Then twitter/Facebook/etc could have their cake and eat it too, censor that content without getting blame for it being censored.
But perhaps there is a fair use argument to be made?
But perhaps there is a fair use argument to be made?
If you abandon something you have no expectation of privacy. It's why both the FBI and private investigators can go through your garbage.
Protip: the laptop never existed
Except theres clear evidence of the FBI's acquisition of the laptop / data.
We can question the framing of data selected from the laptop, but the laptop itself has never been in dispute.
We can question the framing of data selected from the laptop, but the laptop itself has never been in dispute.
Oh, I am sure that a physical laptop was produced, but it's not Biden's.
That presumes the story about the laptop is true. And a lot of details in the story don’t quite make sense.
But still, how is Twitter even supposed to judge whether a story is trustworthy? No clue.
But still, how is Twitter even supposed to judge whether a story is trustworthy? No clue.
Will this apply this to the discussion about the claim that Trump paid $750 in taxes?
Would this apply to the Trump access hollywood tape (grab them by the...)?
Would this apply to the Trump access hollywood tape (grab them by the...)?
No. The access Hollywood tape wasn't made by Trump, and no one published the private tax returns. Had they published the original tax returns, rather than describing them, it would have been different.
So why wasn't the NYT punished for publishing info from Trump's tax returns? The laptop story could at least be true. There is no way for the NYT to receive Trump's tax returns without someone committing a crime.
NYT didn't publish Trump's tax returns, they published prose about supposed contents of Trump's tax returns.
If the articles had PDFs of the documents at the bottom, Twitter should probably block them too. But they don't.
Which is even worse, because apparently they literally spread fake news due to their not understanding how estimated tax payments work.
So, they illegally obtained something and then misreported on it without giving people the ability to verify their claims. I’m not even sure why they’re allowed to be on twitter in that case.
So, they illegally obtained something and then misreported on it without giving people the ability to verify their claims. I’m not even sure why they’re allowed to be on twitter in that case.
And why do you think that's a meaningful distinction?
No, I didn't publish a picture of your credit card, just the numbers on it.
No, I didn't publish a picture of your credit card, just the numbers on it.
Journalists have been dealing with this for a long time. For instance they don't release information about minors accused of a crime even if they have access to it, but they do discuss the events that happened. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Twitter is a private corporation and perhaps its best if we all realize that FB/Twitter/Google are biased agencies.
That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.
That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.
I don't understand how people want to ignore that being pro-"free speech" means private sector corporations can choose which speech they want to associate with too just like an individual can.
You have the right to say whatever you want, everyone else has the right to not allow it on their property.
There is no first amendment right to compelled listening. We aren't remotely close to having that. There isn't even a strong argument having been made for that, there is nothing slithering through the courts that would change that.
This is what happens every time people "cancel" someone, everyone agrees not to listen to them.
The separate standard for platforms is that people are just observing that they can't cancel the platform, easily. Just because they too will lose their own sounding board, which is ironically still being tolerated by said platform. But that is their only option.
You have the right to say whatever you want, everyone else has the right to not allow it on their property.
There is no first amendment right to compelled listening. We aren't remotely close to having that. There isn't even a strong argument having been made for that, there is nothing slithering through the courts that would change that.
This is what happens every time people "cancel" someone, everyone agrees not to listen to them.
The separate standard for platforms is that people are just observing that they can't cancel the platform, easily. Just because they too will lose their own sounding board, which is ironically still being tolerated by said platform. But that is their only option.
I think the issue is that people like me aren't interested in any sort of filtering or curation from Twitter, Facebook, etc. We simply want to see what the people we follow have to say, in linear time order. That was the initial premise of these sites, and it's unfortunate that it is becoming more editorial in nature.
This is a good point, and often overlooked.
A helluva lot of people joined these networks and got captured by the network effect because we were told or believed that they were open sites, just like the rest of the net. If content (or types of content) came along that folks didn't want? Nerds like us would make and give away (or sell) tools for getting rid of that garbage.
In a big way, what we're going through right now is fraud, plain and simple. It may not meet the legal definition, but to grow and scale using one model and then switch to another once you have a monopoly is a form of bait and switch. There's no way in hell I would have joined either site, and I would have vociferously told my friends and family not to join either, if they had been clear up front that this was what they were planning to do.
NOTE: I am not making a legal claim. I mean fraud in the moral sense. I understand with a zillion corporate lawyers that everything these guys do is wonderfully legal, no matter what the long-term social effects end up being. I am speaking in the vernacular, not legal sense. We were tricked.
A helluva lot of people joined these networks and got captured by the network effect because we were told or believed that they were open sites, just like the rest of the net. If content (or types of content) came along that folks didn't want? Nerds like us would make and give away (or sell) tools for getting rid of that garbage.
In a big way, what we're going through right now is fraud, plain and simple. It may not meet the legal definition, but to grow and scale using one model and then switch to another once you have a monopoly is a form of bait and switch. There's no way in hell I would have joined either site, and I would have vociferously told my friends and family not to join either, if they had been clear up front that this was what they were planning to do.
NOTE: I am not making a legal claim. I mean fraud in the moral sense. I understand with a zillion corporate lawyers that everything these guys do is wonderfully legal, no matter what the long-term social effects end up being. I am speaking in the vernacular, not legal sense. We were tricked.
You didn't make the legal claim, but Clarence thomas has started going down that path in the recent Malwarebytes judgement
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m...
The more you think about this the more ticked off you can get.
Voters, and their representatives, made a deliberate effort to be as hands-off as possible to the early internet. It remained tax free. Public facilities were used. Section 230 was passed to remove the specter of liability and so on. We all did the most we could to stay away and let the net develop, knowing that if we came in too heavy-handed, not only would we destroy this new creation, we'd forever taint it in the world's eyes as just being some kind of US thing.
We had high hopes. We were open-minded and experimental. And here's where we freaking ended up: just another Standard Oil or United States Steel Corporation, only this time there wasn't any kind of behind-the-scenes mucking around in politics. It's directly in our face. (And when you point that out, the monopolies themselves will beg for regulation, knowing full well that by the time their money finishes paying off the legislators, the fix will be in. They'll set the wall so high they'll never have true competitors)
Not a happy political place to be, no matter what your particular political views.
Voters, and their representatives, made a deliberate effort to be as hands-off as possible to the early internet. It remained tax free. Public facilities were used. Section 230 was passed to remove the specter of liability and so on. We all did the most we could to stay away and let the net develop, knowing that if we came in too heavy-handed, not only would we destroy this new creation, we'd forever taint it in the world's eyes as just being some kind of US thing.
We had high hopes. We were open-minded and experimental. And here's where we freaking ended up: just another Standard Oil or United States Steel Corporation, only this time there wasn't any kind of behind-the-scenes mucking around in politics. It's directly in our face. (And when you point that out, the monopolies themselves will beg for regulation, knowing full well that by the time their money finishes paying off the legislators, the fix will be in. They'll set the wall so high they'll never have true competitors)
Not a happy political place to be, no matter what your particular political views.
yes but that ship has sailed so long ago now, has it been a decade? like its been non-linear timelines longer than the timeline feature was existing on social networks.
from what I perceive, the angst now comes from Twitter, Facebook and Google acting like arbiters of truth or a moral high ground, when its clear they aren't and might be so drunk on their own koolaid that they can't perceive it internally.
it would be clearer for us for them to just say "we arbitrarily censor some things at our own discretion, there is no rhyme or reason to it, we all went to stanford and live within 2 miles of each other so it might have a pattern of leaning left, but it might not too, we have the right to refuse service to anyone, go somewhere else if thats a problem, but we might buy that service too"
from what I perceive, the angst now comes from Twitter, Facebook and Google acting like arbiters of truth or a moral high ground, when its clear they aren't and might be so drunk on their own koolaid that they can't perceive it internally.
it would be clearer for us for them to just say "we arbitrarily censor some things at our own discretion, there is no rhyme or reason to it, we all went to stanford and live within 2 miles of each other so it might have a pattern of leaning left, but it might not too, we have the right to refuse service to anyone, go somewhere else if thats a problem, but we might buy that service too"
What makes you think anybody is insisting that Twitter has to carry whatever content? We're just calling them out for being biased.
I run into a "I'm pro free speech and am therefore offended when a platform censors something by nature of them censoring at all" comment practically everyday now
people are just conflating the concepts, and I also would not be able to tell if they are consciously referring to the American constitution or a concept that goes far beyond that
people are just conflating the concepts, and I also would not be able to tell if they are consciously referring to the American constitution or a concept that goes far beyond that
Are you ok with Comcast and ISPs filtering your internet then? Forget about net neutrality -- they're a private company and it's their right to censor websites and traffic they don't like.
And since you're standing up for corporate civil rights, I'd love to hear your defense of the Citizens United decision while we're at it.
And since you're standing up for corporate civil rights, I'd love to hear your defense of the Citizens United decision while we're at it.
lol well then
deep breath
Citizens United merely clarified a reality that was already in play, enshrinment of corporate personhood going back to the passage of the 14th amendment, and simply shed light onto the toothlessness of the FEC and removed the discretion that was being used by people that didnt want a court challenge. With the attention I would have thought the people would gave attempted a constitutional amendment but one decade later this is clearly not the avenue people consider leaving only the reality of the tools available.
Corporate personhood is not a new concept and didn’t begin in 2010.
Regarding ISPs, section 230 has the capability of limiting their behavior in exchange for other privileges. There is a case platforms to be subject to that or a similar code.
deep breath
Citizens United merely clarified a reality that was already in play, enshrinment of corporate personhood going back to the passage of the 14th amendment, and simply shed light onto the toothlessness of the FEC and removed the discretion that was being used by people that didnt want a court challenge. With the attention I would have thought the people would gave attempted a constitutional amendment but one decade later this is clearly not the avenue people consider leaving only the reality of the tools available.
Corporate personhood is not a new concept and didn’t begin in 2010.
Regarding ISPs, section 230 has the capability of limiting their behavior in exchange for other privileges. There is a case platforms to be subject to that or a similar code.
Yeah, well “their property” happens to rely on A LOT of public infrastructure.
And its not if trash tabloids don't cancel and destroy people all the time.
And suddenly twitter is a leftist corporation.
Frankly I don't know whats the better way for twitter, its one of those doomed if you do, doomed if not.
Frankly I don't know whats the better way for twitter, its one of those doomed if you do, doomed if not.
We’ll see if on Nov 4 they re-instate it...
Banning right wing conspiracy theories would not have been a political issue 5 years ago. There is nothing intrinsically leftist about this. It turns out that one political party and its propaganda outlets favour disinformation designed (by foreign adversaries) to provoke political violence. This party only has itself to blame.
Anything becomes political as soon as a politician talks about it. So things being 'political' do not transform them into sacred cows.
Anything becomes political as soon as a politician talks about it. So things being 'political' do not transform them into sacred cows.
>There is nothing intrinsically leftist about this.
Exactly, the world is not that polarised that anyone not agreeing with right wing conspiracies is left wing.
Exactly, the world is not that polarised that anyone not agreeing with right wing conspiracies is left wing.
> suddenly twitter is a leftist corporation.
I mean, if you can't see that the social policy of the most leftmost activists and the social policy of the FAANG HR departments have a near-perfect alignment, I don't know what to tell you.
There's a big difference between this and their views on financial policies, but they've learned they can assuage the angry crowd by kowtowing to social issues while continuing to play the job of the robber baron. To successfully ride on top of this unstable equilibrium, it is necessary to (1) establish false dichotomies, a la the Arthur Finklestein school of electoral politics, and (2) to crush dissent that tries to pick apart the false dichotomy by controlling speech and silencing anything that is actually dissident against any concrete part of the narrative that is really open to attack.
Not that I think this Hunter Biden stuff is particularly noteworthy; if anything it's just more fuel for the false dichotomy, and a banning like this one for the NYP is perfect in terms of making it into a lightning-rod issue. Focus on this, people, and not any of the actual things happening in the world right now (like, say, the Middle East, or the flyover-state opioid crisis, or climate change, or inner city crime, or anything else that seemingly stops existing and has no interesting events when we don't pay attention to it, right?)
I mean, if you can't see that the social policy of the most leftmost activists and the social policy of the FAANG HR departments have a near-perfect alignment, I don't know what to tell you.
There's a big difference between this and their views on financial policies, but they've learned they can assuage the angry crowd by kowtowing to social issues while continuing to play the job of the robber baron. To successfully ride on top of this unstable equilibrium, it is necessary to (1) establish false dichotomies, a la the Arthur Finklestein school of electoral politics, and (2) to crush dissent that tries to pick apart the false dichotomy by controlling speech and silencing anything that is actually dissident against any concrete part of the narrative that is really open to attack.
Not that I think this Hunter Biden stuff is particularly noteworthy; if anything it's just more fuel for the false dichotomy, and a banning like this one for the NYP is perfect in terms of making it into a lightning-rod issue. Focus on this, people, and not any of the actual things happening in the world right now (like, say, the Middle East, or the flyover-state opioid crisis, or climate change, or inner city crime, or anything else that seemingly stops existing and has no interesting events when we don't pay attention to it, right?)
"Suddenly". You have to work really hard to make sure your timeline includes centre leaning views, never mind right leaning.
Unless Twitter has changed something recently, there are follow buttons on the account pages for @cnn, @cnni, @reuters, @ap, @bbcworld, @cbcnews, @dwnews, etc. Provided you're using chronological mode (which you should for many, many reasons), tweets from these sources will appear in your timeline.
If you do not consider those news outlets adequately centerist, that may be an indication that your personal Overton window is somewhat skewed.
If you do not consider those news outlets adequately centerist, that may be an indication that your personal Overton window is somewhat skewed.
Yes, because people only use Twitter to follow news outlets. Follow a bunch of Portland software developers and tell me which way your timeline is going to lean.
CNN? Are you being facetious?
Those organizations all have a leftward slant. But thank you for informing me of your skew.
Interesting that @ap is considered a leftward slant. I’m not sure if you’d consider Reuters the same at that point?
This site tends to have fairly reliable analysis of media biases, and AP falls questionably between center and leaning left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-...
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-...
>Because AP’s displays of Lean Left bias are quite infrequent, AP still warrants a Center rating.
They just rate it center. There is no single media source that will never have any bias at all. So that would mean there would never be an center.
They just rate it center. There is no single media source that will never have any bias at all. So that would mean there would never be an center.
I completely agree with your conclusion, but you're cherry picking a quote.
>AP is a source that AllSides has struggled to rate, due to its content seeming to toe the line between Center and Lean Left. People on the right may be more likely to see AP’s content as clearly Lean Left. While AP's news and world reporting is largely Center, AllSides has found AP often includes subjective, leftward analysis in hard news reports and omits sources in its political writing; in addition, its fact checks are biased to the left
>AP is a source that AllSides has struggled to rate, due to its content seeming to toe the line between Center and Lean Left. People on the right may be more likely to see AP’s content as clearly Lean Left. While AP's news and world reporting is largely Center, AllSides has found AP often includes subjective, leftward analysis in hard news reports and omits sources in its political writing; in addition, its fact checks are biased to the left
This media bias chart may be of interest: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2...
Reuters and AP are rated similarly there.
Granted that you need to read the websites methodology to determine whether you think those ratings are credible.
Reuters and AP are rated similarly there.
Granted that you need to read the websites methodology to determine whether you think those ratings are credible.
They're less biased than most sources, but there are little things that are easy to notice.
The Associated Press in 2015: "BREAKING: Obama sends $4 trillion spending plan to Congress, pledging help for middle class."[1]
The Associated Press in 2018: "BREAKING: President Trump sends Congress $4.4 trillion spending plan that features soaring deficits."[2]
If a news organization put "soaring deficits" in the Obama headline and "helping the middle class" in the Trump headline, I'd definitely call that right-wing bias.
1. https://twitter.com/AP/status/562287489365594112
2. https://twitter.com/AP/status/963088143527436288
The Associated Press in 2015: "BREAKING: Obama sends $4 trillion spending plan to Congress, pledging help for middle class."[1]
The Associated Press in 2018: "BREAKING: President Trump sends Congress $4.4 trillion spending plan that features soaring deficits."[2]
If a news organization put "soaring deficits" in the Obama headline and "helping the middle class" in the Trump headline, I'd definitely call that right-wing bias.
1. https://twitter.com/AP/status/562287489365594112
2. https://twitter.com/AP/status/963088143527436288
Obama, proposing $2 trillion in new taxes, ~$500 billion in annual deficits going forward:
https://apnews.com/article/97f7a140f39a43d0995587be61ed388f
Trump proposing tax cuts and ~$1 trillion in annual deficits going forward:
https://apnews.com/article/e50aec4820da4e30aed4bea9ff440e86
The plans differ considerably in substance, your comparison speciously treats them as similar or the same.
And even more, Obama sent a wishlist to a hostile Congress. Trump got more of what he wanted.
https://apnews.com/article/97f7a140f39a43d0995587be61ed388f
Trump proposing tax cuts and ~$1 trillion in annual deficits going forward:
https://apnews.com/article/e50aec4820da4e30aed4bea9ff440e86
The plans differ considerably in substance, your comparison speciously treats them as similar or the same.
And even more, Obama sent a wishlist to a hostile Congress. Trump got more of what he wanted.
It's not clear why these choices in phraseology constitute bias when Obama's 2015 budget featured a deficit of 2.45% of GDP[0] while Trump's 2018 budget featured a deficit of 3.8% of GDP[1].
Factually speaking, Trump did blow up the deficit, and failing to report that, instead of reporting it, would be indicative of bias.
Budgets requested by Republican vs Democratic administrations are different as the parties have different spending and taxation priorities. Reporting budgets without acknowledging that the parties are spending/borrowing/taxing in different areas would be a lie.
Printing news stories that make Republicans look bad is not indicative of bias if those stories are, as is usually the case, factually true. The solution to this problem is not to complain about media bias but rather for the Republican party to do fewer things that look bad.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
Factually speaking, Trump did blow up the deficit, and failing to report that, instead of reporting it, would be indicative of bias.
Budgets requested by Republican vs Democratic administrations are different as the parties have different spending and taxation priorities. Reporting budgets without acknowledging that the parties are spending/borrowing/taxing in different areas would be a lie.
Printing news stories that make Republicans look bad is not indicative of bias if those stories are, as is usually the case, factually true. The solution to this problem is not to complain about media bias but rather for the Republican party to do fewer things that look bad.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_bud...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
Your years are off by one. Obama proposed the 2016 budget in 2015 and Trump proposed the 2019 budget in 2018. Though if you look up the numbers for those years, they're pretty similar.
I would agree with you, except the AP didn't criticize Obama's deficit increases compared to Bush. Pick a non-recession year in the Bush administration (like 2007[1]) and you'll see deficit spending half that of Obama's. That's despite wasting tons of money (and lives) warring in the middle east.
I don't want to go all "both sides" here. One side is certainly more worthy of criticism than the other. But considering the fraction of journalists who are on the left, it's not surprising that an ostensibly unbiased organization can still have some leanings.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_bud...
I would agree with you, except the AP didn't criticize Obama's deficit increases compared to Bush. Pick a non-recession year in the Bush administration (like 2007[1]) and you'll see deficit spending half that of Obama's. That's despite wasting tons of money (and lives) warring in the middle east.
I don't want to go all "both sides" here. One side is certainly more worthy of criticism than the other. But considering the fraction of journalists who are on the left, it's not surprising that an ostensibly unbiased organization can still have some leanings.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_bud...
Reuters, BBC, and AP (excluding politics and fact check) are the only centrist sources out of these organizations. All of the rest are various levels of leaning left.
You really, really do not. It's plenty easy to follow DJT, Cernovich, PJW, baseballcrank, Andy Ngo, etc.
I'm confused. Do you consider these centrists, you're listing here? Otherwise, it's kinda proving my point.
They're right leaning. You made it sound like it's harder to make your timeline right leaning than center leaning.
I started out just following software developers. After Brexit and Trump getting elected, which was completely unexpected by me, I realised how much of an echo chamber I was in. I also realised how left-leaning software devs are as a whole. I would argue that it's same the same for the majority of twitter users.
"centre leaning"
Could you draw a diagram of this?
Could you draw a diagram of this?
Heh. I should have known better that people would get stuck on this. Try find people to follow on Twitter with a nuanced view on abortion, somewhere between at right before birth and never.
I literally don't know how to find or follow any thread on Twitter full stop. I've never been able to make any sense of the UI.
Sure, it's called the Overton Window, and it moves over time.
Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness <--> hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards the left in some way (more egalitarian/equalizing policies, more erosion of authoritative positions on social policies, etc).
Conquest's Second Law is in effect!
At any one time, the "center" is just the point of acceptable shared discourse between the organizations that control the 'poles' at the left and right extents of common discussion; anything past those poles is considered "extreme".
For example, during our lifetimes, discussion of a topic like Gay Marriage has gone from being an extreme leftist social policy you couldn't discuss with people in polite company, to being a hot topic of common debate that even Obama said he would not legalize, to becoming official policy, and then even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more, pushing the topic as far to the right now as it was to the left 30 years ago. (I hold no judgement on the topic here, merely using it as an example for how the window of what is socially acceptable can shift, and the "center" shifts with it.)
Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness <--> hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards the left in some way (more egalitarian/equalizing policies, more erosion of authoritative positions on social policies, etc).
Conquest's Second Law is in effect!
At any one time, the "center" is just the point of acceptable shared discourse between the organizations that control the 'poles' at the left and right extents of common discussion; anything past those poles is considered "extreme".
For example, during our lifetimes, discussion of a topic like Gay Marriage has gone from being an extreme leftist social policy you couldn't discuss with people in polite company, to being a hot topic of common debate that even Obama said he would not legalize, to becoming official policy, and then even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more, pushing the topic as far to the right now as it was to the left 30 years ago. (I hold no judgement on the topic here, merely using it as an example for how the window of what is socially acceptable can shift, and the "center" shifts with it.)
> even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more
This is the GOP party platform for 2016 & 2020:
> Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
https://gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/#Item2
> Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
> Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/#Item4
This is the GOP party platform for 2016 & 2020:
> Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
https://gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/#Item2
> Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
> Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
https://gop.com/platform/we-the-people/#Item4
> This is the GOP party platform for 2016 & 2020:
Surely you understand the difference between things written in a policy platform and things actually done in practice. There is no GOP rep who is out there stirring anything up on reversing this and despite the words "urging its reversal" there is not and will likely not ever be any action in this direction.
I can't really imagine someone following American politics for more than a year and not realizing this. Almost none of the policy white papers these parties and candidates write will ever be implemented, at all.
The GOP almost never does anything its base actually wants, in the socially-conservative sense. They just pretend they will, to get votes; the same way the Democrats pretend they're going to do any number of things for their base that never happen. It's just kayfabe, it's just an act to get you to vote and legitimize their power so that they can continue to do whatever is easiest and most expedient for each individual politician and player at any given moment.
Surely you understand the difference between things written in a policy platform and things actually done in practice. There is no GOP rep who is out there stirring anything up on reversing this and despite the words "urging its reversal" there is not and will likely not ever be any action in this direction.
I can't really imagine someone following American politics for more than a year and not realizing this. Almost none of the policy white papers these parties and candidates write will ever be implemented, at all.
The GOP almost never does anything its base actually wants, in the socially-conservative sense. They just pretend they will, to get votes; the same way the Democrats pretend they're going to do any number of things for their base that never happen. It's just kayfabe, it's just an act to get you to vote and legitimize their power so that they can continue to do whatever is easiest and most expedient for each individual politician and player at any given moment.
I once heard some good advice that I'm going to repeat: when someone tells you who they are, you should listen. The GOP is telling us who they are with their party platform.
Anyway, I hear what you're saying a lot, and yet:
- The GOP enables Texas social workers to refuse LGBTQ clients[1]
- The Trump administration allows doctors to discriminate against LGBTQ people[2]
- The Trump administration allows taxpayer-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ parents[3][4]
- The Trump administration targets homeless trans people[5]
But most importantly, and directly to your point:
- In October of this year, conservative Supreme Court justices chose to speak out against Obergefell[6] at length, for four whole pages, while deciding not to hear another case[7]
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/14/texas-social-workers...
[2] https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/24/21234532/trump-admi...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-admin-s-adopti...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avgFhrHqBWM
[5] https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/7/2/21311179/trump-hud-r...
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/thomas-alito-...
[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c...
Anyway, I hear what you're saying a lot, and yet:
- The GOP enables Texas social workers to refuse LGBTQ clients[1]
- The Trump administration allows doctors to discriminate against LGBTQ people[2]
- The Trump administration allows taxpayer-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ parents[3][4]
- The Trump administration targets homeless trans people[5]
But most importantly, and directly to your point:
- In October of this year, conservative Supreme Court justices chose to speak out against Obergefell[6] at length, for four whole pages, while deciding not to hear another case[7]
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/14/texas-social-workers...
[2] https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/24/21234532/trump-admi...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-admin-s-adopti...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avgFhrHqBWM
[5] https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/7/2/21311179/trump-hud-r...
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/thomas-alito-...
[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c...
So, a few small "wins"; nothing major; nothing that is actually addressing the real concerns of these people that their culture and way of life is being changed forcibly around them without their consent. I don't think you'll find anyone that is satisfied with any of the above - at most perhaps someone who revels in this as some kind of revenge, but it doesn't accomplish what GOP voters want: the return of a strong middle class White culture that reflects the world they believe their ancestors to have been struggling toward.
Culture is always changing regardless of anyone's consent, as it always has.
I'm confused about what you're saying about ".. don't think you'll find anyone that is satisfied ...". If no one is happy about these things, why do they continue to do them?
I'm confused about what you're saying about ".. don't think you'll find anyone that is satisfied ...". If no one is happy about these things, why do they continue to do them?
It's just meaningless bits of red meat chopped off to give the base something for a news cycle. Almost nothing ever comes of it, in the long run....
Mostly correct - however, the period after the Civil War moved the country distinctly back towards the right. Chinese Exclusion Act, among others, would not have been considered mainstream in the early 1800s. This continued well into the 1900s - which is when all the confederate hero statues were built (mostly by private funding). Many are being removed now.
In this case it's possible the Overton Window may finally be shifting back leftward on race and history regarding the Civil War.
In this case it's possible the Overton Window may finally be shifting back leftward on race and history regarding the Civil War.
Good points. I'm not American so my history of that era is spread pretty thin.
> it's possible the Overton Window may finally be shifting back leftward on race and history regarding the Civil War.
I think that the 1965 Hart Cellar Immigration Act began a leftward push on that front that has not really experienced meaningful pushback at all beyond a few small groups publicly acknowledging the quietly-held discomfort of a very large segment of the population.
Confederate statues and the defense thereof are just one of many small ways in which White Americans have tried to retain some sense of identity as their culture is perhaps irrevocably changed beneath them. Some try to make it all about slavery, but if you actually read what the more erudite examples of these folks think it's much more nuanced than that.
> it's possible the Overton Window may finally be shifting back leftward on race and history regarding the Civil War.
I think that the 1965 Hart Cellar Immigration Act began a leftward push on that front that has not really experienced meaningful pushback at all beyond a few small groups publicly acknowledging the quietly-held discomfort of a very large segment of the population.
Confederate statues and the defense thereof are just one of many small ways in which White Americans have tried to retain some sense of identity as their culture is perhaps irrevocably changed beneath them. Some try to make it all about slavery, but if you actually read what the more erudite examples of these folks think it's much more nuanced than that.
And compared to most other countries the US overton window is still very right on economics and foreign policy. Socialised health care, or economically left wing politics are still not mainstream and acceptable. Anything other than pure capitalism is called socialist, and socialist/communist is a term that can be career death for a politician.
> the US overton window is still very right on economics and foreign policy.
Yes! It's amazing. I don't think there will ever be some magical set of axes that allows a really clear quantification of where the US is at. The problem, of course, is that because of the false dichotomy of choices (R vs D) you can't actually vote for foreign policy decisions at all. It's not even a topic of debate, really!
Essentially, the USA continues to have a relatively hawkish position, continues to fund under-reported foreign wars (e.g. in Yemen presently), continues to be a destabilizing entity in many ways, often to the benefit of countries more closely allied to the USA (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc) at the expense of smaller and less powerful nations. It's very confusing, full of misdirections, and impossible for any normal person to follow.
Most Americans want fewer foreign wars, I think. Most Americans (surprisingly including a large and growing swathe of the working class right-wing, believe it or not) are open to the idea of social healthcare in one form or another.
Large moneyed interests make these efforts impossible to take on politically, though, and whenever public opinion could be useful to influence actions on the issue, you'll see more false dichotomies form, meta-layers of fractally nested infighting designed to make it so people get hung up on stupid things and debate that instead of the real issue (huge lobby groups intent on acting as middlemen in every transaction to wring every last dollar out of people for no benefit to them whatsoever).
Yes! It's amazing. I don't think there will ever be some magical set of axes that allows a really clear quantification of where the US is at. The problem, of course, is that because of the false dichotomy of choices (R vs D) you can't actually vote for foreign policy decisions at all. It's not even a topic of debate, really!
Essentially, the USA continues to have a relatively hawkish position, continues to fund under-reported foreign wars (e.g. in Yemen presently), continues to be a destabilizing entity in many ways, often to the benefit of countries more closely allied to the USA (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc) at the expense of smaller and less powerful nations. It's very confusing, full of misdirections, and impossible for any normal person to follow.
Most Americans want fewer foreign wars, I think. Most Americans (surprisingly including a large and growing swathe of the working class right-wing, believe it or not) are open to the idea of social healthcare in one form or another.
Large moneyed interests make these efforts impossible to take on politically, though, and whenever public opinion could be useful to influence actions on the issue, you'll see more false dichotomies form, meta-layers of fractally nested infighting designed to make it so people get hung up on stupid things and debate that instead of the real issue (huge lobby groups intent on acting as middlemen in every transaction to wring every last dollar out of people for no benefit to them whatsoever).
ahhh, you are only thinking of a 2D diagram. Take your circle with a line splitting through the middle. Now, rotate it so that it is a sphere. Tilt it at 23 degress, and you'll have a center leaning image.
Beats me; maybe something like Michael Jackson leaning directly forward in the Smooth Criminal video (https://youtu.be/h_D3VFfhvs4?t=424).
> That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.
You believe it would be best if public discourse became even more of a one-sided echo chamber?
Why is that?
You believe it would be best if public discourse became even more of a one-sided echo chamber?
Why is that?
I'm not sure that "everyone except the NYPost" constitutes a single side. That said, it's Twitter's ball. They can play with it however they please.
> I'm not sure that "everyone except the NYPost" constitutes a single side.
That was never implied.
That was never implied.
Yes, I love how quickly people decided to forget that private companies are often selfish, egotistical and profit driven. The idea of Twitter as a "town center" is non-sense as long as one man essentially has full control over the conversation.
Solutions already exist like the brilliant https://memo.cash for blockchain based messaging.
Solutions already exist like the brilliant https://memo.cash for blockchain based messaging.
If you insist on spreading hateful, proven-false conspiracy theories about a major-party presidential candidate, do not be surprised when reputable firms will not be complicit in such spread.
It's a bit of a catch-22 for twitter. If the material is fake and proven to be false, then I don't think it can meet their definition of "hacked" content (unless some fake stuff is mixed in with real hacked data to make it appear more authentic). Even if it's real, it's a bit debatable whether or not it meets their definition of hacked content, especially since the rule has been ignored in the past (I suppose for tweets that were deemed in the public interest?)
(More caveats- I'm assuming you're talking about Hunter Biden although he isnt a presidential candidate and AFAIK the post's article hasn't been proven false, although it's certainly worth being skeptical about. Especially given the sketchiness of the source)
(More caveats- I'm assuming you're talking about Hunter Biden although he isnt a presidential candidate and AFAIK the post's article hasn't been proven false, although it's certainly worth being skeptical about. Especially given the sketchiness of the source)
Proven false? What are you talking about? A man is testifying in front of the Senate about the veracity of some of the claims under penalty of perjury...
EDIT: honestly, as a conservative who was supportive of the investigation surrounding impeachment, this kind of obvious media double treatment makes me want to double down -- as other conservatives have done -- in simply not supporting conservatives being investigated. It seems obvious that the allegations, the narrative, etc, is tightly controlled by the media, and conservatives are not given a fair shake, while even the most minute details of conservatives are examined in agonous detail (remember the Steele dossier, which is now confirmed Russian disinformation?). If the Hunter Biden allegations are true around the Ukraine prosecutor, then the impeachment was clearly punishing a sitting president for investigating corruption. That is shocking.
EDIT: honestly, as a conservative who was supportive of the investigation surrounding impeachment, this kind of obvious media double treatment makes me want to double down -- as other conservatives have done -- in simply not supporting conservatives being investigated. It seems obvious that the allegations, the narrative, etc, is tightly controlled by the media, and conservatives are not given a fair shake, while even the most minute details of conservatives are examined in agonous detail (remember the Steele dossier, which is now confirmed Russian disinformation?). If the Hunter Biden allegations are true around the Ukraine prosecutor, then the impeachment was clearly punishing a sitting president for investigating corruption. That is shocking.
As a non-conservative, I’m with you. A large part of the left, including the media, have declined into total dishonesty and hypocrisy. They don’t even seem to realize it.
There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" aggregation site, and then I'll see it on the NY Post, and that's it. The other major news sites will only show edited versions of the raw video with their own commentary playing over it, or they won't release it at all.
As a theoretical example-
Immediately after event:
Twitter: OH MY GOD look at this kid driving a schoolbus! <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus>
Two hours after event:
NY Post: Child seen driving school bus <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus>
Twelve hours after event:
NY Times: Child Arrested for School Bus Joyride <3 minute video, containing 18 seconds of footage from original video with expert analysis diagrammed on top>