6 ms·

I mean, you can logical fallacy all you want here but this isn't what OP said at all. I'm not agreeing one way or another, but holy weak argument.

by cheeze 6y ago

adventured 6y ago
It's good to hear we can't publish any leaked information about Trump's tax returns, re the NY Times, a story Twitter intentionally allowed to run at max distribution, along with dozens of prominent anti-Trump stories that ended up being baseless over the last four years which the media happily concocted. Everyone here knows exactly what's going on and it's rotten as can be.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Which publication do you think has better journalistic integrity? NY Post or NY Times? Do you think those screenshots of emails were well vetted given the simplicity of verifying email header info if it had been published?
  - nostromo 6y ago
    > NY Post or NY Times? After the 1619 Project, I'm not even sure anymore.
    - seppin 6y ago
      Unless you have a factual error you'd like to report, citing the 1619 project is a tell that you don't like it's conclusions, and anything you dont like is "fake news".
      - oska 6y ago
        Are you aware that the 1619 Project has been heavily criticised from within the NY Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-criticisms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-...
        seppin 6y ago
        https://i.imgur.com/7zadiIM.png https://i.imgur.com/7zadiIM.png Yes I am aware. Bret Stephens was hired to write headlines like this, to appeal to the "fair and balanced" crowd (which will always fail, nothing will ever be enough).
  - julienb_sea 6y ago
    The fact that NYT didn't post this story says more about their bias than the legitimacy of the story itself. You know full well they would post a story with this level of verifiability if it was damaging for Trump.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      > this level of verifiability As far as I know, literally nothing about the story has been verified.
      - baskire 6y ago
        Are you saying the photos and videos are fakes made by some ML algorithm? For all you know the Post validated the content itself as real.
        Karunamon 6y ago
        The photos are legit, obviously, but the emails as are yet not authenticated. All we got to see was a PDF printout. The full emails, with DKIM headers, being released would solve this problem instantly.
        scarmig 6y ago
        The only practical way for the Post to verify the authenticity of the emails is via the DKIM signature. It's also trivial for them to share the emails and their headers as opposed to just sharing screenshots of them, if they're interested in making it easy to verify the emails' authenticity.
        donmcronald 6y ago
        I'd say there's a far better chance the photos and videos are real than the emails. Given Biden's political connections I think getting videos of his kid smoking crack would be considered very valuable compared to what it would cost to have some party pal take the video. Think about how well it works for a scenario like this. Using real videos to legitimize fake emails is an easy win, especially if you don't release either. No on can disprove the legitimacy of the emails and if Biden says they're total BS you release the real videos to add more legitimacy and give the whole thing another news cycle. Then you claim victory and go silent.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Which publication do you think has better journalistic integrity? Should that matter if the criteria for Twitter is whether something contains hacked/leaked materials or PII? Big news often contain the former and most articles contain the latter. Twitter would lose a lot of journalists if they went down that route. Might be good for the sanity of the users though.
    - donmcronald 6y ago
      I actually do think it matters. I also think there should be a distinction between things leaked by a whistleblower and things leaked by a thief or a patsy. However, since whistleblowers are often putting themselves at significant risk, we end up relying on the integrity of the journalists / publications in terms of taking their word for the legitimacy of the source. So yeah. A publication that makes a significant effort to vet their source and the story deserves the benefit of the doubt while a publication that acts as a click-bait tabloid without any kind of investigative effort doesn't. That said, I think Twitter is grasping a bit and trying to use a policy that's right or wrong when the reality is more subjective. The other thing I don't understand is how revisiting section 230 of the DMCA and turning Twitter into a publisher is going to improve things. If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? They're looking for a whipping boy IMO.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I very much do agree with you with regards to giving more trust to companies (or individual journalists) with a good track record. My issue is mostly that Twitter isn't using that as a policy (at least not as a stated policy) but a more vague thing like "can't contain information gained by unauthorized access" and then applies that selectively. I kind of understand why they don't, because that would likely be hard to quantify and you'd have to decide what basket a company goes into, which would act as a gate keeper (if you don't have a good track record, or none at all, you can't publish visibly) and they'd likely have to constantly monitor for changes. Not something that scales well or can be automated, and definitely something where they'd get roasted each time the NYT commits a faux pas. > If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? True. In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.
  - paulnechifor 6y ago
    You're not even trying to hide that policies don't matter. Apparently it's all about whether you agree with the author or not. Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with, but it's dishonest how they portray themselves as being non-partizan.
    - 75dvtwin 6y ago
      > Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with That's right. But when they do that, can they claim that they are a 'platform' and not a 'publisher' ? If paulX is a for-profit-business can he claim that his business a non profit and apply tax code designed for non-profit charities ?
  - refurb 6y ago
    The NYTimes just said “trust me, we have the returns, but no, you can’t see them”. I don’t see a whole lot of difference here.

I mean, you can logical fallacy all you want here but this isn't what OP said at all. I'm not agreeing one way or another, but holy weak argument.

by cheeze 6y ago

I mean, you can logical fallacy all you want here but this isn't what OP said at all. I'm not agreeing one way or another, but holy weak argument.

adventured 6y ago

It's good to hear we can't publish any leaked information about Trump's tax returns, re the NY Times, a story Twitter intentionally allowed to run at max distribution, along with dozens of prominent anti-Trump stories that ended up being baseless over the last four years which the media happily concocted. Everyone here knows exactly what's going on and it's rotten as can be.

donmcronald 6y ago
Which publication do you think has better journalistic integrity? NY Post or NY Times? Do you think those screenshots of emails were well vetted given the simplicity of verifying email header info if it had been published?
- nostromo 6y ago
  > NY Post or NY Times? After the 1619 Project, I'm not even sure anymore.
  - seppin 6y ago
    Unless you have a factual error you'd like to report, citing the 1619 project is a tell that you don't like it's conclusions, and anything you dont like is "fake news".
    - oska 6y ago
      Are you aware that the 1619 Project has been heavily criticised from within the NY Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-criticisms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-...
      - seppin 6y ago
        https://i.imgur.com/7zadiIM.png https://i.imgur.com/7zadiIM.png Yes I am aware. Bret Stephens was hired to write headlines like this, to appeal to the "fair and balanced" crowd (which will always fail, nothing will ever be enough).
- julienb_sea 6y ago
  The fact that NYT didn't post this story says more about their bias than the legitimacy of the story itself. You know full well they would post a story with this level of verifiability if it was damaging for Trump.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    > this level of verifiability As far as I know, literally nothing about the story has been verified.
    - baskire 6y ago
      Are you saying the photos and videos are fakes made by some ML algorithm? For all you know the Post validated the content itself as real.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        The photos are legit, obviously, but the emails as are yet not authenticated. All we got to see was a PDF printout. The full emails, with DKIM headers, being released would solve this problem instantly.
      - scarmig 6y ago
        The only practical way for the Post to verify the authenticity of the emails is via the DKIM signature. It's also trivial for them to share the emails and their headers as opposed to just sharing screenshots of them, if they're interested in making it easy to verify the emails' authenticity.
      - donmcronald 6y ago
        I'd say there's a far better chance the photos and videos are real than the emails. Given Biden's political connections I think getting videos of his kid smoking crack would be considered very valuable compared to what it would cost to have some party pal take the video. Think about how well it works for a scenario like this. Using real videos to legitimize fake emails is an easy win, especially if you don't release either. No on can disprove the legitimacy of the emails and if Biden says they're total BS you release the real videos to add more legitimacy and give the whole thing another news cycle. Then you claim victory and go silent.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Which publication do you think has better journalistic integrity? Should that matter if the criteria for Twitter is whether something contains hacked/leaked materials or PII? Big news often contain the former and most articles contain the latter. Twitter would lose a lot of journalists if they went down that route. Might be good for the sanity of the users though.
  - donmcronald 6y ago
    I actually do think it matters. I also think there should be a distinction between things leaked by a whistleblower and things leaked by a thief or a patsy. However, since whistleblowers are often putting themselves at significant risk, we end up relying on the integrity of the journalists / publications in terms of taking their word for the legitimacy of the source. So yeah. A publication that makes a significant effort to vet their source and the story deserves the benefit of the doubt while a publication that acts as a click-bait tabloid without any kind of investigative effort doesn't. That said, I think Twitter is grasping a bit and trying to use a policy that's right or wrong when the reality is more subjective. The other thing I don't understand is how revisiting section 230 of the DMCA and turning Twitter into a publisher is going to improve things. If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? They're looking for a whipping boy IMO.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I very much do agree with you with regards to giving more trust to companies (or individual journalists) with a good track record. My issue is mostly that Twitter isn't using that as a policy (at least not as a stated policy) but a more vague thing like "can't contain information gained by unauthorized access" and then applies that selectively. I kind of understand why they don't, because that would likely be hard to quantify and you'd have to decide what basket a company goes into, which would act as a gate keeper (if you don't have a good track record, or none at all, you can't publish visibly) and they'd likely have to constantly monitor for changes. Not something that scales well or can be automated, and definitely something where they'd get roasted each time the NYT commits a faux pas. > If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? True. In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.
- paulnechifor 6y ago
  You're not even trying to hide that policies don't matter. Apparently it's all about whether you agree with the author or not. Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with, but it's dishonest how they portray themselves as being non-partizan.
  - 75dvtwin 6y ago
    > Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with That's right. But when they do that, can they claim that they are a 'platform' and not a 'publisher' ? If paulX is a for-profit-business can he claim that his business a non profit and apply tax code designed for non-profit charities ?
- refurb 6y ago
  The NYTimes just said “trust me, we have the returns, but no, you can’t see them”. I don’t see a whole lot of difference here.