7 ms·

I question if the National Review is really the best home for this story.

dang 6y ago
I also felt more comfortable with yahoo.com than with a politicized site like NR. The intention here is simply to be accurate and neutral to the extent possible. But it's the same article, so it doesn't make sense to pretend that it comes from a different source, besides which the HN guidelines say "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If there's a more neutral and accurate article we can change it again.
- likeafox 6y ago
  The headlines on this story are all over the place - I think the one that does the least to inject their own voice is NPR: >[Facebook And Twitter Limit Sharing New York Post Story About Joe Biden](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitter-limit-sharing-new-york-post-story-about-joe-biden https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitte...) In comparison, there's Bloomberg: >[Facebook Slows Spread of N.Y. Post Biden Story to Fact-Check](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/facebook-to-reduce-distribution-of-new-york-post-story-on-bidens https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/facebook-...) Or CNBC: >[Facebook, Twitter make editorial decisions to limit distribution of story claiming to show ‘smoking gun’ emails related to Biden and his son](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/facebook-makes-editorial-decision-to-limit-nypost-biden-story.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/facebook-makes-editorial-dec...)
- rectang 6y ago
  I understand the moderation decisions made today, but I'm alienated by them. A political article like this one would ordinarily get flagged off the HN front page. The subject matter of Twitter and Facebook imposing constraints on distribution is germane, but this article goes way beyond that by propagating the suspect email content.
  - dang 6y ago
    Obviously HN readers are going to want to see the emails and decide for themselves. There's zero implication of authenticity (or inauthenticity for that matter). The only thing we care about at our end is having an accurate article (and headline) for the story. Politics isn't completely off-topic for HN—there's overlap and it depends. There's lots of previous explanation about that at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., and if anyone has a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is. We turn off user flags sometimes when a story contains interesting (in HN's sense) new information and the probability of a substantive discussion clears a certain threshold.
    - heartbreak 6y ago
      > see the emails and decide for themselves Using information or skills uniquely possessed by HN readers?
      - dang 6y ago
        Surely not.
      - Craighead 6y ago
        like understanding metadata? we have a bigger problem if hn readers can't do that
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  Yahoo was the one who published the Steele dossier misinformation 4 years ago. Why are they better?
  - pvg 6y ago
    That was published, post-election, by Buzzfeed News.
    - blisseyGo 6y ago
      It goes much before that. Isikoff met Steele on Sept 22, 2016, and published a story about Carter Page the next day. He didn’t verify a thing. All he did was get an anon government official to say FBI had the dossier. And that kind of journalism happens all the time and never gets called out. The double standards are amazing.
      - pvg 6y ago
        Carter Page really ought to have sued Yahoo and that Isikoff fellow over how they misrepresented him!
srtjstjsj 6y ago
It's hard to find a non-right-wing source promoting extraordinary right-wing campaign claims that are not accompanied by evidence or a credible background story.
- dang 6y ago
  The story from an HN point of view is not the campaign claim—that would probably be off topic—but the actions taken by Twitter and Facebook, which are significant new information [1] about an interesting new phenomenon [2]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22significant%20new%20informa... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
beervirus 6y ago
National Review definitely has a slant, but I’d be hard pressed to find anything they’ve said here that’s factually inaccurate.

dang 6y ago

I also felt more comfortable with yahoo.com than with a politicized site like NR. The intention here is simply to be accurate and neutral to the extent possible. But it's the same article, so it doesn't make sense to pretend that it comes from a different source, besides which the HN guidelines say "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If there's a more neutral and accurate article we can change it again.

likeafox 6y ago
The headlines on this story are all over the place - I think the one that does the least to inject their own voice is NPR: >[Facebook And Twitter Limit Sharing New York Post Story About Joe Biden](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitter-limit-sharing-new-york-post-story-about-joe-biden https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitte...) In comparison, there's Bloomberg: >[Facebook Slows Spread of N.Y. Post Biden Story to Fact-Check](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/facebook-to-reduce-distribution-of-new-york-post-story-on-bidens https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-14/facebook-...) Or CNBC: >[Facebook, Twitter make editorial decisions to limit distribution of story claiming to show ‘smoking gun’ emails related to Biden and his son](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/facebook-makes-editorial-decision-to-limit-nypost-biden-story.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/facebook-makes-editorial-dec...)
rectang 6y ago
I understand the moderation decisions made today, but I'm alienated by them. A political article like this one would ordinarily get flagged off the HN front page. The subject matter of Twitter and Facebook imposing constraints on distribution is germane, but this article goes way beyond that by propagating the suspect email content.
- dang 6y ago
  Obviously HN readers are going to want to see the emails and decide for themselves. There's zero implication of authenticity (or inauthenticity for that matter). The only thing we care about at our end is having an accurate article (and headline) for the story. Politics isn't completely off-topic for HN—there's overlap and it depends. There's lots of previous explanation about that at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., and if anyone has a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is. We turn off user flags sometimes when a story contains interesting (in HN's sense) new information and the probability of a substantive discussion clears a certain threshold.
  - heartbreak 6y ago
    > see the emails and decide for themselves Using information or skills uniquely possessed by HN readers?
    - dang 6y ago
      Surely not.
    - Craighead 6y ago
      like understanding metadata? we have a bigger problem if hn readers can't do that
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
blisseyGo 6y ago
Yahoo was the one who published the Steele dossier misinformation 4 years ago. Why are they better?
- pvg 6y ago
  That was published, post-election, by Buzzfeed News.
  - blisseyGo 6y ago
    It goes much before that. Isikoff met Steele on Sept 22, 2016, and published a story about Carter Page the next day. He didn’t verify a thing. All he did was get an anon government official to say FBI had the dossier. And that kind of journalism happens all the time and never gets called out. The double standards are amazing.
    - pvg 6y ago
      Carter Page really ought to have sued Yahoo and that Isikoff fellow over how they misrepresented him!

srtjstjsj 6y ago

It's hard to find a non-right-wing source promoting extraordinary right-wing campaign claims that are not accompanied by evidence or a credible background story.

dang 6y ago
The story from an HN point of view is not the campaign claim—that would probably be off topic—but the actions taken by Twitter and Facebook, which are significant new information [1] about an interesting new phenomenon [2]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22significant%20new%20informa... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

beervirus 6y ago

National Review definitely has a slant, but I’d be hard pressed to find anything they’ve said here that’s factually inaccurate.