5 ms·

I agree, twitter suppression made the story bigger. The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those instituti

I agree, twitter suppression made the story bigger. The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Ironic, considering the founder of the NYPost and his opinions on market economies.

darkerside 6y ago
I would consider retractions a mark of respectability, and the failure to issue them a tacit admission of failure in accountability.
- beaner 6y ago
  That, or, of course, the Post's original reporting has been more accurate.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Sounds like software with no bugs, if you ask me
    - beaner 6y ago
      Sure, but people mostly only say this when they don't like that the other guy has written better software.
      - darkerside 6y ago
        I'm sorry, but you must not be familiar with the Post. It's a sensationalist tabloid. The reason they don't publish retractions is NOT because of the airtight integrity of their reporting.
        beaner 6y ago
        Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..
        beaner 6y ago
        This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.
        darkerside 6y ago
        Correct, it is ad hominem, which is appropriate in a discussion about the respectability of a journalist institution, which this is.
        beaner 6y ago
        This is a clever shift from discussing the respectability of the reporting at hand, to discussing the respectability of the reporting institution. Your claim that a failure to issue retractions is an admission of failure in accountability is true - when the reporting needs retractions. So far, there's no evidence that the reporting does.
        darkerside 6y ago
        > The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Yes, I claim the reason is a lack of accountability. You claim the reason is impeccability of reporting. I think the reputation and style of reporting is relevant to deciding which of those factors is more relevant. You're free to disagree with that. But please don't call it a clever shift. I'm having your conversation here.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  A sign of respect, but the NYpost was never given that option and immediately went into suppression, and it did not turn out to be false information. Meanwhile, CNN and NYTIMES post content and retract it in higher amounts, and they never were surpressed, locked out of their account or even had twitter force to fix "itself" by now agreeing that they'd "wouldn't" remove content but now just "flag it." That, is not respect, that is an alliance.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    A story that contains the claim “someone who didn’t leave their name dropped a random laptop off at a store and we’re going to pretend it was Hunter Biden without evidence” can’t ‘turn out to be false’ because there’s no assertion there to begin with. It’s like claiming that an unsigned int set to zero hasn’t gotten any smaller.
  - tchock23 6y ago
    Can you provide a source that confirms it was not false information?
  - darkerside 6y ago
    What exactly is the information that was reported? Is there an actual claim in here, or is it just an information dump, so that someone can point to it and say, "just look at all the corruption" without actually making any disprovable claims?
Ma8ee 6y ago
That NYPost has issued fewer retractions just means that they lack the integrity to take responsibility for its misinformation.
hackyhacky 6y ago
The NY Post is not a serious source of journalism. Like the other Murdoch properties, it's primarily a propaganda outlet. Even its own employees will tell you that [1]. Retractions are an indication of journalistic integrity. So of course they don't issue retractions, that would imply commitment to the truth. Who else doesn't issue retractions? Fox, The Sun, The Times (UK). No one would argue that Twitter does journalism, but their content policy does prohibit spreading of deliberate, dangerous misinformation, which the Post reporting obviously is. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-inside...
TwoBit 6y ago
It may well have made the story bigger, but also it may have benefitted Joe Biden anyway due to (e.g.) the education many people got regarding this attempt at election meddling. The polls didn't seem to get significantly worse for Biden as this unfolded.
- dlp211 6y ago
  And why should it. According to the WSJ news side, Joe Biden had nothing to do with anything in that story. If there was an actual story here, the DOJ and FBI are more than capable of launching an investigation. The NYTimes, WaPo, LaTimes, WSJ, would all have no issues reporting on this either through investigation or a leak from those former orgs. And maybe in the past, this would have mattered, but don't be surprised when after 4 years of norm breaking and corruption, people don't care about this except those with a specific ideology.

darkerside 6y ago

I would consider retractions a mark of respectability, and the failure to issue them a tacit admission of failure in accountability.

beaner 6y ago
That, or, of course, the Post's original reporting has been more accurate.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Sounds like software with no bugs, if you ask me
  - beaner 6y ago
    Sure, but people mostly only say this when they don't like that the other guy has written better software.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but you must not be familiar with the Post. It's a sensationalist tabloid. The reason they don't publish retractions is NOT because of the airtight integrity of their reporting.
      - beaner 6y ago
        Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.
        srtjstjsj 6y ago
        It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..
        beaner 6y ago
        This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.
        darkerside 6y ago
        Correct, it is ad hominem, which is appropriate in a discussion about the respectability of a journalist institution, which this is.
        beaner 6y ago
        This is a clever shift from discussing the respectability of the reporting at hand, to discussing the respectability of the reporting institution. Your claim that a failure to issue retractions is an admission of failure in accountability is true - when the reporting needs retractions. So far, there's no evidence that the reporting does.
        darkerside 6y ago
        > The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Yes, I claim the reason is a lack of accountability. You claim the reason is impeccability of reporting. I think the reputation and style of reporting is relevant to deciding which of those factors is more relevant. You're free to disagree with that. But please don't call it a clever shift. I'm having your conversation here.
rootsudo 6y ago
A sign of respect, but the NYpost was never given that option and immediately went into suppression, and it did not turn out to be false information. Meanwhile, CNN and NYTIMES post content and retract it in higher amounts, and they never were surpressed, locked out of their account or even had twitter force to fix "itself" by now agreeing that they'd "wouldn't" remove content but now just "flag it." That, is not respect, that is an alliance.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  A story that contains the claim “someone who didn’t leave their name dropped a random laptop off at a store and we’re going to pretend it was Hunter Biden without evidence” can’t ‘turn out to be false’ because there’s no assertion there to begin with. It’s like claiming that an unsigned int set to zero hasn’t gotten any smaller.
- tchock23 6y ago
  Can you provide a source that confirms it was not false information?
- darkerside 6y ago
  What exactly is the information that was reported? Is there an actual claim in here, or is it just an information dump, so that someone can point to it and say, "just look at all the corruption" without actually making any disprovable claims?

Ma8ee 6y ago

That NYPost has issued fewer retractions just means that they lack the integrity to take responsibility for its misinformation.

hackyhacky 6y ago

The NY Post is not a serious source of journalism. Like the other Murdoch properties, it's primarily a propaganda outlet. Even its own employees will tell you that [1]. Retractions are an indication of journalistic integrity. So of course they don't issue retractions, that would imply commitment to the truth. Who else doesn't issue retractions? Fox, The Sun, The Times (UK). No one would argue that Twitter does journalism, but their content policy does prohibit spreading of deliberate, dangerous misinformation, which the Post reporting obviously is. [1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-inside...

TwoBit 6y ago

It may well have made the story bigger, but also it may have benefitted Joe Biden anyway due to (e.g.) the education many people got regarding this attempt at election meddling. The polls didn't seem to get significantly worse for Biden as this unfolded.

dlp211 6y ago
And why should it. According to the WSJ news side, Joe Biden had nothing to do with anything in that story. If there was an actual story here, the DOJ and FBI are more than capable of launching an investigation. The NYTimes, WaPo, LaTimes, WSJ, would all have no issues reporting on this either through investigation or a leak from those former orgs. And maybe in the past, this would have mattered, but don't be surprised when after 4 years of norm breaking and corruption, people don't care about this except those with a specific ideology.