20 ms·
Is it? Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here. If it's completely bogus, how is it different from any of those Russian trollfarm
by Hamuko 6y ago
Is it? Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here. If it's completely bogus, how is it different from any of those Russian trollfarm posts that the US government was worried about?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's different because it was written by a major American newspaper. Twitter should not be exercising editorial control over the news.
- Hamuko 6y agoIsn't it distribution control rather than editorial control?
- koolba 6y agoLimiting distribution to filter out what you don't want to rise to the top has the same effect as explicitly picking winners. Think of it like shooting the tires of all the cars you want to lose in a race. Sure you didn't push the winner across the finish line, but you made it damn near impossible for anyone else to even get there.
- Hamuko 6y agoYeah, but that's still not editorial control. And maybe we do actually want Twitter to pick some winners. I don't think the platform needs any more death threats, Russian-backed misinformation campaigns or other bullshit.
- rightbyte 6y agoWhat if Russian missinormation is a Russian misinformation campaigne to induce paranoia and there are no actual misinformation ... How about a straight forward algorithm for the feed instead of some hugely adbiased mess.
- hef19898 6y agoAnd this is exactly what social media does all the time, or rather their recommendation algorithms. Which, for some reason, is no problem at all. Now that the bias of these algorithms is changing, also by directly intervening, it is a big problem.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't think so. You could perhaps make an argument that banning all NY Post articles would be distribution control, although even then I'm skeptical. But if I picked up a physical copy of the New York Post, and found that the newsstand had snipped just this one article out with a pair of scissors, I'd call that an unambiguous act of editorial control and censorship.
- kofejnik 6y agoif a news network with a 1B viewers only gave free airtime to one side, it would clearly be in violation of campaign finance laws, among others
- davismwfl 6y agoIt could be easily argued while they are not rewriting the story they selectively choose the facts they present as "fact checked" information. In the recent past both FB and Twitter have linked to "fact checked" articles/sources that represented only the narrative they wanted you to read. If they wanted to show neutral behavior they could have linked to articles that represented both sides of an argument which would keep their independence and educate their audience better since rarely is one side 100% correct.
- iaw 6y agoThe "both sides" of an argument thing does not work when one side is intellectually dishonest and bases arguments on misinterpretations and mistruths.
- aksss 6y agoProblem is that both sides see the other as exactly this. I’m sure I can argue the point on behalf of either side selected by a coin toss. In today’s example though we have the side that dominates academia, media, big labor, healthcare, public sector workers, and big tech using that dominance to censor a story harmful to their candidate with very disingenuous reasoning.
- iaw 6y agoOnly one side has come up with 'alternative facts' and argued that conclusive science is 'still out'. I've seen hypocrisy on both sides for sure but the intellectual dishonesty is only coming from one.
- aksss 6y agoI know a dozen people who would agree with you and thirteen who would argue the opposite and cite sources. You might not be as objective as you think here.
- 6y ago
- drcongo 6y agoIs the NY Post considered a serious newspaper over there?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's one of those papers in the strange intersection of "mainstream tabloid". It's clearly not serious, as you can see from a quick glance at their typical cover pages, but it's also not one of the papers everyone knows is untrustworthy schlock.
- microtherion 6y agoAnd it's a paper whose headlines are more widely cited than the articles, because it's known for the catchy headlines.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoYes, it's a serious newspaper. But it is known to use sans serif fonts and hire people that went to public schools.
- throwawa3495 6y ago>hire people that went to public schools. You say this like it's an insult.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoParent was being sarcastic, insinuating that people who don't like Rupert Murdoch's decades-old propaganda empire are elitist.
- rabuse 6y agoIs information being gated by private universities, that only the elite have access to? This may have had validity in the pre-internet era, but information is everywhere now. There's nothing wrong with "public education".
- frob 6y agoThe New York Post is not a serious newspaper; it is a sensationalist tabloid. Sometimes the NYPost will report on real news, but I believe absolutely nothing they report until it is verified by the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, or other major broadcast outlet with actual journalistic standards.
- gotoeleven 6y agoIm genuinely curious what journalistic standards you think these mainstream outlets possess after all the Russia nonsense. Can you point to an example of any recent story where these outlets have displayed "actual journalistic standards"?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoAgreed, and I don't mean to imply any sort of endorsement of the NY Post.
- trident1000 6y agoNone of them are serious. NY Times made a big deal out of trumps taxes when everyone knows depreciation offsets revenue in real estate, its 101 stuff. You get taxed when you sell the asset which happens infrequently but in large magnitude. Most people in the industry were laughing at the gaslighting they did on that story but they fooled their little pawn readers. Just one example out of many. Every news source is full of shit even the ones that are supposed to be reputable.
- whateveracct 6y agoYou realize the real story re: Trump's asset depreciation is that he reported one valuation to the govt and one to his banks when seeking loans, right?
- trident1000 6y agoThe story headline that was coordinated and gaslight was "trump didnt pay any tax". Everything else was anecdotal, I didnt look into this specific matter because I was rolling my eyes from the start. If they cant be honest about the main story I'm not following them for the rest of the allegations.
- takeda 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post The fist sentence has a word "tabloid" in it. It's not reputable source of news by any stretch.
- s9w 6y agothey didn't censor the completely made up hysterectomy story. also: c-f "russia"
- paganel 6y ago> Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here. WMD were non-factual, but even so nobody got censored back then (worse, nobody went to prison for going to war on non-factual information).
- evan_ 6y agoI’m not sure what you’re arguing for. If we had ignored everyone claiming there were WMDs then a million people would still be alive, not to mention the trillions of dollars saved.
- paganel 6y agoI'm saying that the press was more than happy to publish non-factual information back in March-April 2003 and that no-one thought of censoring it.
- sylens 6y agoSo they should never learn from their mistakes?
- jimmydorry 6y agoDid they learn from their mistakes? Or are we just in election season operating with "special rules"?
- odessacubbage 6y agothey did learn from their mistakes. they learned that there's zero consequence in trafficking the right lies for the right people and were professionally rewarded for doing so. it should be no surprise that the exact same people latched so heavily onto the steele dossier and the cult of mueller-ism
- takeda 6y agoWMD information was provided by government officials and it was official government position on it, the news were reporting what officials said and provided. This is not even remotely close.
- jtbayly 6y agoOf course the factuality is a big deal. But Twitter didn’t discover the story was false and then remove it. Rather they decided that because the information came from a hack that it couldn’t be posted on their site. If anything they confirmed it was true by doing this. Magine if they had applied this to WikiLeaks.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoThere are two possibilities: Either it's really a hack or it's a felonious attempt to manipulate an election. Or it's both -- a hack of personal private photos and also fake emails feloniously manipulating an election. Either way, a ban is appropriate. Saying "if it's true, it's ban able for X" without out bothering to say that obviously it's bannable if it's false, isn't saying it's true. How could Twitter even know?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jtbayly 6y agoSo Wikileaks should have been suppressed?
- chmod600 6y agoBoth are important. Censoring something important without knowing whether it's true or not is pretty worrisome. If it does turn out to be true then it's much worse. If it turns out to be false, the censor got lucky or knows something we don't. One thing I'm wondering is how can they censor it without getting either some evidence that it's fake or at least a clear denial? (Biden's campaign released a statement refuting it, but that's not the same as Biden himself publicly denying the claims.) Thin evidence (someone found some damaging-looking emails) can be dismissed with thin counter-evidence (a denial). But it can't be dismissed with nothing.
- aksss 6y agoThe factuality is what we should be debating. When Twitter bans its dissemination that becomes as big a story and - like it or not - makes folks believe there’s more truth to the story than they perhaps would have in absence of such blatant, double-standard censorship.
- odessacubbage 6y agotwitter and the journo sphere launder misinformation every single day with no consequence. the russian bounty story had little relation to factuality but it was still widespread with no objections or even much if any in the way of post facto correction. it's entirely permissible to write complete fiction just as long as you preface it with 'intelligence sources indicate...'