4 ms·

This article is about blocking a story by the NY Post. It may be true or may be false, but it already passed the traditional gatekeepers. It passed a

This article is about blocking a story by the NY Post. It may be true or may be false, but it already passed the traditional gatekeepers. It passed a gatekeeper, and was refuted by others. And if you're describing the NY Post as a "traditional gatekeeper", you're not familiar with the NY Post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Style It represents roughly the midpoint between a serious journalistic operation and the National Enquirer.

blix 6y ago
In the distant past of 2007, the National Enquirer broke a sex scandal involving democratic politician John Edwards which often is thought to have played a major role in the 2008 dem primaries. Should factually accurate information that matters to people be rejected or hidden because of style? Who gets to decide the correct style? Would you apply the same standards to alternately aligned publications of questionable style, like WaPo/HuffPo?
nradov 6y ago
Almost all of the stories in the National Enquirer are factually correct. You might not like the subject matter but they are journalists.
- anthonyrstevens 6y ago
  The National Enquirer is listed at the edge between "Propaganda / Contains Misleading Info" (2nd lowest category) and "Contains Inaccurate / Fabricated Info" (lowest category). https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2... The National Enquirier is NOT a reputable journalistic outlet.
chmod600 6y ago
The argument that Twitter or FB need to restrict/block content is based on the idea that Twitter/FB built readership for "lunatics" in the first place. Bu that argument doesn't apply here for two reasons: 1. The NY Post has existed in some form for 200 years, and has built its own reader base. 2. Twitter blocked even direct messages.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  The NY Post is old (founded by Alexander Hamilton!) but in recent decades has truly evolved into a gleefully trashy and conservatively opinionated newspaper, having been run by Rupert Murdoch for some time. I completely fail to see how their rights are somehow being impinged here. They have their own mini-media empire and are part of a larger media empire. How... exactly are they being stifled and why is Twitter obligated to amplify their voice? I would certainly agree that this does fall afoul of Section 230, which I think was a great foundation but could use some serious rethinking.

blix 6y ago

In the distant past of 2007, the National Enquirer broke a sex scandal involving democratic politician John Edwards which often is thought to have played a major role in the 2008 dem primaries. Should factually accurate information that matters to people be rejected or hidden because of style? Who gets to decide the correct style? Would you apply the same standards to alternately aligned publications of questionable style, like WaPo/HuffPo?

nradov 6y ago

Almost all of the stories in the National Enquirer are factually correct. You might not like the subject matter but they are journalists.

anthonyrstevens 6y ago
The National Enquirer is listed at the edge between "Propaganda / Contains Misleading Info" (2nd lowest category) and "Contains Inaccurate / Fabricated Info" (lowest category). https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2... The National Enquirier is NOT a reputable journalistic outlet.

chmod600 6y ago

The argument that Twitter or FB need to restrict/block content is based on the idea that Twitter/FB built readership for "lunatics" in the first place. Bu that argument doesn't apply here for two reasons: 1. The NY Post has existed in some form for 200 years, and has built its own reader base. 2. Twitter blocked even direct messages.

JohnBooty 6y ago
The NY Post is old (founded by Alexander Hamilton!) but in recent decades has truly evolved into a gleefully trashy and conservatively opinionated newspaper, having been run by Rupert Murdoch for some time. I completely fail to see how their rights are somehow being impinged here. They have their own mini-media empire and are part of a larger media empire. How... exactly are they being stifled and why is Twitter obligated to amplify their voice? I would certainly agree that this does fall afoul of Section 230, which I think was a great foundation but could use some serious rethinking.