12 ms·

That's an angle I hadn't even considered, but I'm surprised Twitter didn't. SV social media companies, of all the organizations in the world, should understand

That's an angle I hadn't even considered, but I'm surprised Twitter didn't. SV social media companies, of all the organizations in the world, should understand the implications of a Streisanding. If they had just left it alone, maybe attached the standard "this might be false" disclaimer, it would likely have passed as yet another partisan thing, but now they've gone and infused it with a bunch of power it didn't have prior.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AI_WAIFU 6y ago
I think they got cocky with their grip on information and thought their algorithms would prevent the Streisand effect.
felipemnoa 6y ago
>>but now they've gone and infused it with a bunch of power it didn't have prior. I don't know. I think the people that are going to believe these kinds of stories at face value would have found this story on their own regardless. It is not like the NY Post is some obscure paper. It may make this story stronger with those that are already inclined to believe this stuff. I think by this time people have already made their decision on whom they are going to vote and they will use any story that agrees with their decision as proof that they are right.
- ibeckermayer 6y ago
  What about the story should I not be taking at face value? I just read the email, seems pretty clearcut that the Burisma bigshot asked Hunter to "use your influence" to fight off the "general prosecutor". Ultimately Biden did get the prosecutor general fired by withholding foreign aid, and bragged about it on camera. IIRC Trump was impeached for supposedly threatening to withhold foreign aid from Ukraine unless they investigated this incident.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    Well first off, is the email real? Even if it is real, do we know if Hunter Biden actually used "his influence"? What indications are there that Hunter Biden's supposed actions were critical to Shokin's firing anyway? Several governments and other organizations were concerned because Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma properly, having laid the investigation he inherited from his predecessor dormant. The demand to fire him wasn't something that Joe Biden came up with himself out of the blue, and at the end of the day it was most likely to Burisma's detriment. It's not an impeachable offense to threaten to withhold foreign aid for valid reasons that further the interests of the United States. It was (and should be) an impeachable offense to illegally withhold aid that was already meant to have been delivered, and to do so for personal gain.
    - aksss 6y ago
      Well let’s keep in mind Biden has denied any such interaction with Burisma, has denied any wrongdoing in his son’s appointment, has denied any implication of graft. Despite information that at least warrants some hard questioning. Now this comes out and Biden’s team has not denied its legitimacy. And this from a candidate who’s last bid for President tanked because of his own admitted lying and plagiarizing. Judge it how you like but I don’t think you can extend Biden a benefit of the doubt — quite the opposite should be the default position, probably for any politician.
      - AzzieElbab 6y ago
        So is this where he steps down and Harris steps up? Let’s be honest, upcoming elections are going to be 100% about Trump. It doesn’t matter who his opponent is. Attacking Biden is pointless, and Twitters reaction was self destructive blunder that will cost them no matter who wins in November
    - skrowl 6y ago
      Not even the Biden campaign disputes the emails being real. They just said they checked his calendar and could find no such meeting, then later backpedaled and said they couldn't discount the possibly that it happened and just wasn't on the official schedule.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
The safest bet is it changes nobody's opinion. If you're left leaning, you've drowned out Trump's repeatedly false statements --or become numb to them-- no October surprise will have an effect on you. If you're right leaning, this furthers your perspective that Clinton and Deep State are up to no good. Nobody comes across content like this without an existing world view to inspect it, and the lines have been drawn a long time ago.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- labster 6y ago
  Right, but this is what makes the situation so dangerous in the U.S. If no one’s mind is changed over events like these, then we’re at a point where there are essentially two citizenries which both see the other side as toxic. We’re slouching towards civil war. Most people don’t want war, but do see the other side as harmful, so we have to try hard to avoid it. Maybe we’re all looking at it wrong, maybe a civil war increases shareholder value for Facebook? Because the way they went about this is another escalation. Nothing drives engagement like military engagements, right?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I had assumed it was just that people were consuming two entirely different media streams. But I’ve had conversations recently where college educated people won’t even concede basic factual points left out of a media narrative. Like, things that can be established just by looking at some publicly available document, which I have given them. They keep just circling back to the narrative. It’s scary.
    - duckMuppet 6y ago
      You're mistake was thinking that being college educated leads to critical thinking. On the contrary, college and the University system in general is largely a credentialing and signaling system now. Very often, the public education system in the US at least removed much of the critical thinking for thinking in narratives.
runarberg 6y ago
In the grand scheme of things, the Pandora's box Twitter and Facebook might have opened today seems minute next to the Pandora’s box the Bush administration opened after the 9-11 attacks, the homeland security and all. I think after the election we will have completely forgotten about this conduct while we still have to live with the spying on innocent people, non-sense travel restriction, and human-rights violating immigration system for years to come. Making a scene of this decision just seems like stirring a storm inside a teacup, all the while we are experiencing a hurricane from the patriot act.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  How does the immigration system violate human rights?
  - bipson 6y ago
    not GP, but most immigration systems violate human rights all the time by treating people as if they were people without these rights - or not people at all. Most of the time the legal leeway is based upon them not being citizens (yet). What is the path to immigration in your country? It begins with a legal dilemma: E.g. asylum is a human right, but how to determine who is eligible? In a timely manner that is. Especially if you have thousands of applicants and (almost) no documents. How do you house people in the meantime? What rights do they have?
    - CaoCao 6y ago
      "asylum is a human right" "determine who is eligible" Well, if it's a human right, then everyone. But it's not, which is why you have this twisted logic. There is no right to freely cross borders.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - jlokier 6y ago
        Asylum is a human right, that doesn't mean everyone can successfully claim it! It means everyone has a right to put in a claim to asylum and have it assessed properly by the authorities. > There is no right to freely cross borders. In some circumstances, yes there is. If there's a war in country A, and non-combatants flee to neighbouring country B out of genuine necessity for safety, yes that border crossing is widely regarded as a human right. It derives from the basic right to life. Doesn't mean country B will respect it.
jrumbut 6y ago
Perhaps they did understand, or perhaps they do but the decision was made by someone who didn't. If Twitter et al really want to be public resources they need transparency in their decision making and possibly independent oversight. If they want to just be regular businesses they need to take responsibility for the bullshit they propogate. Straddling these two lanes hasn't been working for society and it seems like regulation or breakups are close to inevitable.
dionian 6y ago
Clearly their partisan activism got the best of them. No longer can they merely label trump's tweets as misinfo, they have to start full-on censoring. They were probably trying to find a way to call this hate speech or racism to justify it.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  I worked at a large media company and we held internal meetings essentially telling people how to vote. The media we promoted was aligned with this: all extreme left wing. It’s just as bad as trump. We’ve all lost.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AI_WAIFU 6y ago

I think they got cocky with their grip on information and thought their algorithms would prevent the Streisand effect.

felipemnoa 6y ago

>>but now they've gone and infused it with a bunch of power it didn't have prior. I don't know. I think the people that are going to believe these kinds of stories at face value would have found this story on their own regardless. It is not like the NY Post is some obscure paper. It may make this story stronger with those that are already inclined to believe this stuff. I think by this time people have already made their decision on whom they are going to vote and they will use any story that agrees with their decision as proof that they are right.

ibeckermayer 6y ago
What about the story should I not be taking at face value? I just read the email, seems pretty clearcut that the Burisma bigshot asked Hunter to "use your influence" to fight off the "general prosecutor". Ultimately Biden did get the prosecutor general fired by withholding foreign aid, and bragged about it on camera. IIRC Trump was impeached for supposedly threatening to withhold foreign aid from Ukraine unless they investigated this incident.
- Cederfjard 6y ago
  Well first off, is the email real? Even if it is real, do we know if Hunter Biden actually used "his influence"? What indications are there that Hunter Biden's supposed actions were critical to Shokin's firing anyway? Several governments and other organizations were concerned because Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma properly, having laid the investigation he inherited from his predecessor dormant. The demand to fire him wasn't something that Joe Biden came up with himself out of the blue, and at the end of the day it was most likely to Burisma's detriment. It's not an impeachable offense to threaten to withhold foreign aid for valid reasons that further the interests of the United States. It was (and should be) an impeachable offense to illegally withhold aid that was already meant to have been delivered, and to do so for personal gain.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Well let’s keep in mind Biden has denied any such interaction with Burisma, has denied any wrongdoing in his son’s appointment, has denied any implication of graft. Despite information that at least warrants some hard questioning. Now this comes out and Biden’s team has not denied its legitimacy. And this from a candidate who’s last bid for President tanked because of his own admitted lying and plagiarizing. Judge it how you like but I don’t think you can extend Biden a benefit of the doubt — quite the opposite should be the default position, probably for any politician.
    - AzzieElbab 6y ago
      So is this where he steps down and Harris steps up? Let’s be honest, upcoming elections are going to be 100% about Trump. It doesn’t matter who his opponent is. Attacking Biden is pointless, and Twitters reaction was self destructive blunder that will cost them no matter who wins in November
  - skrowl 6y ago
    Not even the Biden campaign disputes the emails being real. They just said they checked his calendar and could find no such meeting, then later backpedaled and said they couldn't discount the possibly that it happened and just wasn't on the official schedule.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

The safest bet is it changes nobody's opinion. If you're left leaning, you've drowned out Trump's repeatedly false statements --or become numb to them-- no October surprise will have an effect on you. If you're right leaning, this furthers your perspective that Clinton and Deep State are up to no good. Nobody comes across content like this without an existing world view to inspect it, and the lines have been drawn a long time ago.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
labster 6y ago
Right, but this is what makes the situation so dangerous in the U.S. If no one’s mind is changed over events like these, then we’re at a point where there are essentially two citizenries which both see the other side as toxic. We’re slouching towards civil war. Most people don’t want war, but do see the other side as harmful, so we have to try hard to avoid it. Maybe we’re all looking at it wrong, maybe a civil war increases shareholder value for Facebook? Because the way they went about this is another escalation. Nothing drives engagement like military engagements, right?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 6y ago
  I had assumed it was just that people were consuming two entirely different media streams. But I’ve had conversations recently where college educated people won’t even concede basic factual points left out of a media narrative. Like, things that can be established just by looking at some publicly available document, which I have given them. They keep just circling back to the narrative. It’s scary.
  - duckMuppet 6y ago
    You're mistake was thinking that being college educated leads to critical thinking. On the contrary, college and the University system in general is largely a credentialing and signaling system now. Very often, the public education system in the US at least removed much of the critical thinking for thinking in narratives.

runarberg 6y ago

In the grand scheme of things, the Pandora's box Twitter and Facebook might have opened today seems minute next to the Pandora’s box the Bush administration opened after the 9-11 attacks, the homeland security and all. I think after the election we will have completely forgotten about this conduct while we still have to live with the spying on innocent people, non-sense travel restriction, and human-rights violating immigration system for years to come. Making a scene of this decision just seems like stirring a storm inside a teacup, all the while we are experiencing a hurricane from the patriot act.

robertlagrant 6y ago
How does the immigration system violate human rights?
- bipson 6y ago
  not GP, but most immigration systems violate human rights all the time by treating people as if they were people without these rights - or not people at all. Most of the time the legal leeway is based upon them not being citizens (yet). What is the path to immigration in your country? It begins with a legal dilemma: E.g. asylum is a human right, but how to determine who is eligible? In a timely manner that is. Especially if you have thousands of applicants and (almost) no documents. How do you house people in the meantime? What rights do they have?
  - CaoCao 6y ago
    "asylum is a human right" "determine who is eligible" Well, if it's a human right, then everyone. But it's not, which is why you have this twisted logic. There is no right to freely cross borders.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Asylum is a human right, that doesn't mean everyone can successfully claim it! It means everyone has a right to put in a claim to asylum and have it assessed properly by the authorities. > There is no right to freely cross borders. In some circumstances, yes there is. If there's a war in country A, and non-combatants flee to neighbouring country B out of genuine necessity for safety, yes that border crossing is widely regarded as a human right. It derives from the basic right to life. Doesn't mean country B will respect it.

jrumbut 6y ago

Perhaps they did understand, or perhaps they do but the decision was made by someone who didn't. If Twitter et al really want to be public resources they need transparency in their decision making and possibly independent oversight. If they want to just be regular businesses they need to take responsibility for the bullshit they propogate. Straddling these two lanes hasn't been working for society and it seems like regulation or breakups are close to inevitable.

dionian 6y ago

Clearly their partisan activism got the best of them. No longer can they merely label trump's tweets as misinfo, they have to start full-on censoring. They were probably trying to find a way to call this hate speech or racism to justify it.

dkdk8283 6y ago
I worked at a large media company and we held internal meetings essentially telling people how to vote. The media we promoted was aligned with this: all extreme left wing. It’s just as bad as trump. We’ve all lost.