9 ms·

Twitter's "rules" would have stopped huge stories like The Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, Watergate, etc from being posted on their platform. The statement rea

Twitter's "rules" would have stopped huge stories like The Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, Watergate, etc from being posted on their platform. The statement read like it was typed up by an intern that didn't communicate with the legal team or any logical person. (edited for clarification)

krapp 6y ago
>Twitter's "rules" would have stopped huge stories like The Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, Watergate, etc. Only in a universe in which Twitter is the sole means of broadcasting, publishing and communication - but we don't live in that universe, so no, they really wouldn't have.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I don't mean they would have literally stopped the entire story from being a story, but that their own rules would have banned the posting of that news on their own platform, even from viable sources.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Sure, but it still wouldn't matter. It's not a good argument that Twitter "censoring" content actually has any relevant effect beyond its platform.
    - DeonPenny 6y ago
      Except for the fact that section 230 argues they shouldnt be censoring anything. So they should be liable to be sued for doing things like this like any other publication.
      - iron0013 6y ago
        No it doesn’t.
    - Niten 6y ago
      If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016? Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
      - krapp 6y ago
        Did I claim that Twitter had no effect on broader society? No. I claimed that Twitter theoretically banning content related to stories like Watergate, the Panama Papers, etc, would have had no relevant effect on the dissemination of those stories beyond its platform. In other words, that Twitter's policies have no relevant effect on the media landscape at large or the spread of information outside of its domain. Russian bots may or may not be a problem, but that problem is orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.
        throwaways885 6y ago
        So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Then the content will probably go on to achieve gigantic commercial success; as is usually the case it appears that something is being banned. See e.g. Spycatcher, this story.
        krapp 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). I mean, do they also control the entirety of mainstream media, all of the news outlets, all book and newspaper publishers, email, television, radio and the entire rest of the internet? Sorry... this is Hacker News, so I have to point out that they actually don't, and that was kind of a rhetorical question. No, believe it or not, people would still know about Watergate or the Panama papers even in that case. >Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. You mean the purely speculative case you just made up? Sure, it would be, but then the purely speculative case you just made up doesn't reflect reality, so who cares? And even then, as I mentioned, there is still an entire universe of broadcasting and publishing outside of social media, and the internet itself. So even if all social media sites and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon suddenly decided they weren't competitors and collaborated to ban the same content, that content still isn't memory holed or erased from history. >And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society. Yeah... you should take your brilliant intellectual riposte to 4chan where it would be best appreciated. Here we rather appreciate putting a modicum of effort into refuting someone's position. You're going to need something more compelling than that.
mhh__ 6y ago
Why? Watergate was largely built off journalistic work not hacked materials, obviously deep throat was inside the FBI but he was never quoted
- slg 6y ago
  >obviously deep throat was inside the FBI Which is still a huge moral difference. I would have hoped that HN would be one community that would understand the difference between a whistleblower leaking data to journalists to expose a crime versus an outsider committing a crime in order to acquire data to leak for their own political gain. But I guess I shouldn't expect that considering many people here think Snowden, Manning, and Assange are all of equal moral standing.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The phrase "for their own political gain" describes one of those people much better than the other two
    - slg 6y ago
      That was my intent. Snowden and Manning are whistleblowers. Assange is very much not a whistleblower.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        He's a publisher, not the original source, so he can't be a whistleblower (or leaker or whatever). And he seems to be a pompous ass, but let's be honest, people are mad at him because of the particular true things he published. Collateral murder undermined the effort to sell war as a noble goal, and then Podesta's emails hurt the democrats, so now both political parties and their fans feel personally burned by him. He's being railroaded right now, were you aware? Not a US citizen but somehow inexplicably being extradited and charged under the US espionage act.
        slg 6y ago
ruined 6y ago
They've already used this same policy to stop Blueleaks.

krapp 6y ago

>Twitter's "rules" would have stopped huge stories like The Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, Watergate, etc. Only in a universe in which Twitter is the sole means of broadcasting, publishing and communication - but we don't live in that universe, so no, they really wouldn't have.

partiallypro 6y ago
I don't mean they would have literally stopped the entire story from being a story, but that their own rules would have banned the posting of that news on their own platform, even from viable sources.
- krapp 6y ago
  Sure, but it still wouldn't matter. It's not a good argument that Twitter "censoring" content actually has any relevant effect beyond its platform.
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    Except for the fact that section 230 argues they shouldnt be censoring anything. So they should be liable to be sued for doing things like this like any other publication.
    - iron0013 6y ago
      No it doesn’t.
  - Niten 6y ago
    If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016? Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
    - krapp 6y ago
      Did I claim that Twitter had no effect on broader society? No. I claimed that Twitter theoretically banning content related to stories like Watergate, the Panama Papers, etc, would have had no relevant effect on the dissemination of those stories beyond its platform. In other words, that Twitter's policies have no relevant effect on the media landscape at large or the spread of information outside of its domain. Russian bots may or may not be a problem, but that problem is orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.
      - throwaways885 6y ago
        So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Then the content will probably go on to achieve gigantic commercial success; as is usually the case it appears that something is being banned. See e.g. Spycatcher, this story.
        krapp 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). I mean, do they also control the entirety of mainstream media, all of the news outlets, all book and newspaper publishers, email, television, radio and the entire rest of the internet? Sorry... this is Hacker News, so I have to point out that they actually don't, and that was kind of a rhetorical question. No, believe it or not, people would still know about Watergate or the Panama papers even in that case. >Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. You mean the purely speculative case you just made up? Sure, it would be, but then the purely speculative case you just made up doesn't reflect reality, so who cares? And even then, as I mentioned, there is still an entire universe of broadcasting and publishing outside of social media, and the internet itself. So even if all social media sites and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon suddenly decided they weren't competitors and collaborated to ban the same content, that content still isn't memory holed or erased from history. >And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society. Yeah... you should take your brilliant intellectual riposte to 4chan where it would be best appreciated. Here we rather appreciate putting a modicum of effort into refuting someone's position. You're going to need something more compelling than that.

mhh__ 6y ago

Why? Watergate was largely built off journalistic work not hacked materials, obviously deep throat was inside the FBI but he was never quoted

slg 6y ago
>obviously deep throat was inside the FBI Which is still a huge moral difference. I would have hoped that HN would be one community that would understand the difference between a whistleblower leaking data to journalists to expose a crime versus an outsider committing a crime in order to acquire data to leak for their own political gain. But I guess I shouldn't expect that considering many people here think Snowden, Manning, and Assange are all of equal moral standing.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The phrase "for their own political gain" describes one of those people much better than the other two
  - slg 6y ago
    That was my intent. Snowden and Manning are whistleblowers. Assange is very much not a whistleblower.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      He's a publisher, not the original source, so he can't be a whistleblower (or leaker or whatever). And he seems to be a pompous ass, but let's be honest, people are mad at him because of the particular true things he published. Collateral murder undermined the effort to sell war as a noble goal, and then Podesta's emails hurt the democrats, so now both political parties and their fans feel personally burned by him. He's being railroaded right now, were you aware? Not a US citizen but somehow inexplicably being extradited and charged under the US espionage act.
      - slg 6y ago

ruined 6y ago

They've already used this same policy to stop Blueleaks.