4 ms·

It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.)

It likely is BS, but not definitely. Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong (I'm sorry, but journalists mocking the story isn't a point.) But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked.

runarberg 6y ago
Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, at which point the social media companies can offer an apology and release the links to this article.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  We absolutely can blame them. Twitter and Facebook have repeatedly taken the position that there's no need to reform section 230 or otherwise strongly regulate their moderation, because they're very dedicated to the idea of free discourse and would never abuse their power. If they now feel that free discourse is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed, they should let the country know that so that we can make regulatory decisions accordingly.
- disown 6y ago
  > how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy That's the propaganda some have been pushing. What was it? Russia spent $50K on facebook ads and won trump the election? > I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, Like CNN or the nytimes or the washingtonpost which peddled trump-russia conspiracy for 4 years? Lets be real here, you support this censorship because of your political bias. If facebook was censoring the other side, you'd be railing against facebook. "he/him" lmao.
- aksss 6y ago
  You would expect Twitter and Facebook to articulate standards in advance and adhere to them consistently, but in this case we have individuals who have literally been on the payroll of one political side making exceptional judgements on behalf of the platforms that nakedly favor one side over another, consistently.
arrosenberg 6y ago
> But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked. Facebook will do whatever provides the greatest return for their shareholders - they have no duty to Constitutional values. That is the only thing that will drive their decision making, so obviously they decided the long term risks of letting Trump abuse their platform with propaganda outweighs the short-term blow back from conservatives, who appear likely to be out of power in 4 months anyways. If the public wants a role in how Facebook should handle this type of thing, then Congress needs to stop play-acting and starting writing legislation.
dx87 6y ago
Also the point about the backstory not making sense. It basically says "The Biden Campaign checked Biden's schedule, and said that Biden didn't attend an illegal meeting at that time". The rush to cover and dismiss the story makes it seem more likely that it's true (I have no idea either way), than if people could just write it off as another crackpot story from the NY Post.
- herbstein 6y ago
  A rush could just as likely be a realization that a story like this, whether true or not, can sow massive doubt. Just look at what happened with Comey and Clinton in 2016. Rushing to get ahead of a story doesn't only happen when the story is true, but when you expect a sizable subset of the population to believe the story is true.
rectang 6y ago
> Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong The people who wrote the NY Post piece had plenty of time to prepare. Now the story is rocketing around at the speed of the internet; but it takes time to refute authoritatively. Twitter, Facebook, HN, and similar channels will have spread the story regardless of its truth or untruth. They are vulnerable to propaganda, similar to how open relays are to spreading spam.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  So by your logic we should just delay any posting of news so that it can be vetted by other outlets, which defeats the entire purpose of getting scoops. Plenty of false stories have been spread by big outlets, including CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc...no one has said we should censor those stories. Who gets to draw the line and when? So far -every- proposal I've seen targets one group and isn't broadly applied.
  - rectang 6y ago
    > So by your logic Wrong. I pointed out a problem, but I did not suggest a remedy. It's a hard problem. There's a saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." It goes back centuries: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

runarberg 6y ago

Extraordinary times calls for extraordinary actions. The coming US election is no small deal, and we have seen in past elections how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy (including but not limited to influencing elections). You really can’t blame Twitter and Facebook here for taking the more radical step against an obvious smear campaign that blatantly fails the smell test. I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, at which point the social media companies can offer an apology and release the links to this article.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
We absolutely can blame them. Twitter and Facebook have repeatedly taken the position that there's no need to reform section 230 or otherwise strongly regulate their moderation, because they're very dedicated to the idea of free discourse and would never abuse their power. If they now feel that free discourse is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed, they should let the country know that so that we can make regulatory decisions accordingly.
disown 6y ago
> how bad actors have been using social media to undermine democracy That's the propaganda some have been pushing. What was it? Russia spent $50K on facebook ads and won trump the election? > I’m sure if this story turns out to be true, we will hear about it from more reliable media, Like CNN or the nytimes or the washingtonpost which peddled trump-russia conspiracy for 4 years? Lets be real here, you support this censorship because of your political bias. If facebook was censoring the other side, you'd be railing against facebook. "he/him" lmao.
aksss 6y ago
You would expect Twitter and Facebook to articulate standards in advance and adhere to them consistently, but in this case we have individuals who have literally been on the payroll of one political side making exceptional judgements on behalf of the platforms that nakedly favor one side over another, consistently.

arrosenberg 6y ago

> But, even if it is, it's not the role of Facebook to decide it is or isn't, when it is not verify-ably false. Instead they should just elevate critics of the article/scoop like the article you linked. Facebook will do whatever provides the greatest return for their shareholders - they have no duty to Constitutional values. That is the only thing that will drive their decision making, so obviously they decided the long term risks of letting Trump abuse their platform with propaganda outweighs the short-term blow back from conservatives, who appear likely to be out of power in 4 months anyways. If the public wants a role in how Facebook should handle this type of thing, then Congress needs to stop play-acting and starting writing legislation.

dx87 6y ago

Also the point about the backstory not making sense. It basically says "The Biden Campaign checked Biden's schedule, and said that Biden didn't attend an illegal meeting at that time". The rush to cover and dismiss the story makes it seem more likely that it's true (I have no idea either way), than if people could just write it off as another crackpot story from the NY Post.

herbstein 6y ago
A rush could just as likely be a realization that a story like this, whether true or not, can sow massive doubt. Just look at what happened with Comey and Clinton in 2016. Rushing to get ahead of a story doesn't only happen when the story is true, but when you expect a sizable subset of the population to believe the story is true.

rectang 6y ago

> Even some of the points in the TPM article aren't very strong The people who wrote the NY Post piece had plenty of time to prepare. Now the story is rocketing around at the speed of the internet; but it takes time to refute authoritatively. Twitter, Facebook, HN, and similar channels will have spread the story regardless of its truth or untruth. They are vulnerable to propaganda, similar to how open relays are to spreading spam.

partiallypro 6y ago
So by your logic we should just delay any posting of news so that it can be vetted by other outlets, which defeats the entire purpose of getting scoops. Plenty of false stories have been spread by big outlets, including CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc...no one has said we should censor those stories. Who gets to draw the line and when? So far -every- proposal I've seen targets one group and isn't broadly applied.
- rectang 6y ago
  > So by your logic Wrong. I pointed out a problem, but I did not suggest a remedy. It's a hard problem. There's a saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." It goes back centuries: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/