33 ms·

Twitter still hasn't unlocked the New York Post's account

632 points by dsaavy 6y ago

free_rms 6y ago
So what happens when Biden probably wins? Will any criticism of our sitting President be punishable by banning from social media?
- btbuildem 6y ago
  Has criticism of the current president been banned?
  - free_rms 6y ago
    More like mandated. But, I repeat, what happens when it's "our side" in power? Would leaks about malfeasance under his administration be "improperly sourced information"?
    - knowaveragejoe 6y ago
      If it seems like it's mandated, but it's not, then it's because a lot of people disagree(strongly) with the guy.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- javagram 6y ago
  Unlikely. Remember, there were 10 separate investigations into Benghazi, for instance, and Twitter didn’t block any of them from being posted. No reason to suppose they will act differently for Biden. Their action here seems to be more out of fear of a pre-election bombshell similar to the 2016 “emails” that turned out to a nothingburger.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    That was then, this is now. They are acting differently for Biden. Twitter's setting themselves up as the arbiter of what constitutes "properly sourced" information. What happens if there's another Snowden-type leak under Biden? Hacked materials, gathered without consent, potentially slanderous, definitely hurting the 'good guys' in this news cycle...
    - zonzobonzo 6y ago
      they aren't acting differently for Biden. They are acting responsibly to the American public. Do you support the destruction of truth free_rms?
    - rhizome 6y ago
      >They are acting differently for Biden. The difference is that right-wing trash usually comes directly from Trump, then republished in the tabloids. We've seen that get reined in a little in annotating his worst tweets and FB posts, but don't pretend there's an equivalence between their public communications.
r00fus 6y ago
Twitter is a private corporation and perhaps its best if we all realize that FB/Twitter/Google are biased agencies. That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.
- codegladiator 6y ago
  And suddenly twitter is a leftist corporation. Frankly I don't know whats the better way for twitter, its one of those doomed if you do, doomed if not.
  - damagednoob 6y ago
    "Suddenly". You have to work really hard to make sure your timeline includes centre leaning views, never mind right leaning.
    - recursive 6y ago
      "centre leaning" Could you draw a diagram of this?
      - dylan604 6y ago
        ahhh, you are only thinking of a 2D diagram. Take your circle with a line splitting through the middle. Now, rotate it so that it is a sphere. Tilt it at 23 degress, and you'll have a center leaning image.
      - core-questions 6y ago
        Sure, it's called the Overton Window, and it moves over time. Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness <--> hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards the left in some way (more egalitarian/equalizing policies, more erosion of authoritative positions on social policies, etc). Conquest's Second Law is in effect! At any one time, the "center" is just the point of acceptable shared discourse between the organizations that control the 'poles' at the left and right extents of common discussion; anything past those poles is considered "extreme". For example, during our lifetimes, discussion of a topic like Gay Marriage has gone from being an extreme leftist social policy you couldn't discuss with people in polite company, to being a hot topic of common debate that even Obama said he would not legalize, to becoming official policy, and then even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more, pushing the topic as far to the right now as it was to the left 30 years ago. (I hold no judgement on the topic here, merely using it as an example for how the window of what is socially acceptable can shift, and the "center" shifts with it.)
Google234 6y ago
Twitter wants revenge for the embarrassment it faced.
quacked 6y ago
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" aggregation site, and then I'll see it on the NY Post, and that's it. The other major news sites will only show edited versions of the raw video with their own commentary playing over it, or they won't release it at all. As a theoretical example- Immediately after event: Twitter: OH MY GOD look at this kid driving a schoolbus! <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus> Two hours after event: NY Post: Child seen driving school bus <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus> Twelve hours after event: NY Times: Child Arrested for School Bus Joyride <3 minute video, containing 18 seconds of footage from original video with expert analysis diagrammed on top>
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Is the "time to publication" a useful metric, when the cost is accuracy? Once something incorrect is published, it has a lot more weight than a retraction/correction.
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    I agree with you but I don't think that was the real essence of their criticism. It was more about releasing actual primary sources instead of a heavily edited version of their own narrative with very little of the prinary source remaining.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Tabloids aren’t new. Ever checked out the headlines in print at a grocery store check-out? If the NYPost want to be The Publication Who Cried Wolf and everything that comes with that reputation, let them.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      Weren't they still able to do it on their own properties? Twitter has decided it doesn't want to amplify this kind of content, that seems reasonable.
codecamper 6y ago
NY Post aka Rupert Murdoch.
ummonk 6y ago
I mean, isn't it good when they uniformly apply policies against sharing illicitly obtained private content?
- redthrowaway 6y ago
  So why wasn't the NYT punished for publishing info from Trump's tax returns? The laptop story could at least be true. There is no way for the NYT to receive Trump's tax returns without someone committing a crime.
  - slondr 6y ago
    NYT didn't publish Trump's tax returns, they published prose about supposed contents of Trump's tax returns. If the articles had PDFs of the documents at the bottom, Twitter should probably block them too. But they don't.
    - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
      And why do you think that's a meaningful distinction? No, I didn't publish a picture of your credit card, just the numbers on it.
      - pat2man 6y ago
        Journalists have been dealing with this for a long time. For instance they don't release information about minors accused of a crime even if they have access to it, but they do discuss the events that happened. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Which is even worse, because apparently they literally spread fake news due to their not understanding how estimated tax payments work. So, they illegally obtained something and then misreported on it without giving people the ability to verify their claims. I’m not even sure why they’re allowed to be on twitter in that case.
bmarquez 6y ago
Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why). Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.
- eli 6y ago
  Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
    - eli 6y ago
      Ah, yeah, that's fair. I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
- vvillena 6y ago
  As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done. Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
  - vaccinator 6y ago
    But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.
  - hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
throwawaysea 6y ago
Here's the NY Post on Twitter's update to their own hacked materials rule, which suggests that NY Post is not in violation of Twitter's updated policies: https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materials-guidelines-after-post-controversy/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materia... As a reminder, there are numerous past instances where Twitter did not apply the same policies that were used to shut down NY Post: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoaxes-that-twitter-and-facebook-didnt-throttle-because-they-hurt-trump/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax... This selective application of policy is evidence of Twitter's bias, which I assume results from the bias of their leadership team and employee base. A company this big, which this much influence, cannot be trusted to operate the digital public square for an entire nation, let alone the world. It is a threat to speech, since the reach of these platforms is such that speech effectively doesn't exist if it isn't on these platforms. We need competing platforms badly, but it is hard to challenge the first-mover advantage of network effects of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Perhaps we simply need to instead regulate them so that they do not deplatform/censor content that does not break the law.
blhack 6y ago
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator.
- slondr 6y ago
  Electrical power shouldn't be privately controlled.
  - blhack 6y ago
    Maybe not, but it is.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      It may be privately owned, but regulatory control still exists, and prevents the scenario you're talking about. To the extent that the regulatory scheme fails, that is a problem when and where it happens. But I've never heard of a power company refusing to provide electricity to a customer due to political disagreements. At least not in the U.S.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong with it being privately controlled. It was privately invented and developed, after all.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      How does it matter whether it was developed publicly, or privately? Deregulation in the late 90s led to the Enron scandal, so I think there are clear reasons why not to be privately owned.
      - 6y ago
nickthemagicman 6y ago
Twitters censorship just serves to further polarize and divide people. As the right bails on twitter and goes to pure conservative echo chambers and the left stays in their leftist echo chambers... any shared interactions are lost. Even though it's their right as a private company...its truly a shame that Twitter is acting like this.
- Tokkemon 6y ago
  If a faction of society that breeds on lies decides to self-isolate and/or act in a way to get pushed out of the mainstream, that shouldn't be a controversial action. The faction does it to themselves.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    I appreciate your opinions. This isn't a small fringe group. The right is almost 50% of the country. The fact that you're demonizing such a large group instead of attempting to understand them reveals a little of your fanaticism that you may not even be aware of.
- war1025 6y ago
  > As the right bails on twitter For what it's worth, I've stopped commenting on HackerNews because any even moderately pro-Trump opinion is met by the downvote brigade. In my opinion, interacting with strangers online is just a recipe for a bad time. I'd cease social media entirely, but I'm not allowed to be social out in the real world anymore, and work is too boring to stay focused for an entire work day.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    I'm very centrist so I respect and support aspects of both sides. I don't think the extreme left realizes it but they're just as fanatical as the right. I've had your same experiences on hacker news at times. It's a down vote brigade for anything counter to the progressive narrative whether it's Trump or Covid or Global Warming or other progressive ideas. It's a great site though and I have had some great conversations and learned a lot as long as you steer clear of the progressive agenda. Reddit is way worse. It makes hacker news look like The Wall Street Journal. There's a theory called horseshoe theory that claims that the fanatical left and right have more in common with each other than they do centrists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
eli 6y ago
The Post still hasn't deleted the offending tweet. Those are the rules: on a first violation of posting someone's personal information without permission you get your account locked until you delete the tweet.
- dudul 6y ago
  Is it what they finally settled on? because we've heard "we don't relay unverified news" and "we don't relay hacked information" as well.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Either way it's ridiculous. Most news is unverified. And the NY Post article wasn't hacked information.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- OliverGilan 6y ago
  How do they delete the tweet if they're locked out of the account?
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    There's a separate flow where they've sent the NYPost an email detailing why their account has been suspended with a link to the Tweet in question and a link saying "Delete this Tweet". As soon as they delete it, their account will be reinstated. They've chosen not to delete for either "moral" reasons or "moral outrage" reasons, but the ball is in their court.
    - eznzt 6y ago
      Don't think the "the ball is in their court" thing applies when you don't really have a choice.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fareesh 6y ago
But, citizens of Detroit, OCP is a private company, they can do what they want!
- zach_garwood 6y ago
  Twitter has not been granted a law enforcement monopoly (nor any sort of monopoly) by the US government. If you want me to buy that for a dollar, your going to have to come up with a better analogy.
rwoodley 6y ago
Well the fact is the NY Times story is probably accurate and the NY Post story is extremely suspect. Twitter made a journalistic decision not to spread trash, possibly from Russia, that could have a real impact on our election result. Tough call, but the right call. If twitter sees itself as having some sort of moderator role than it has to make these judgement calls. Other outlets didn't amplify the Hunter Biden laptop story either. Even conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal decided it was too sketchy to spread. Twitter is trying to avoid being a platform for conspiracy theories and foreign intelligence agencies. It has to act.
- dsaavy 6y ago
  It would maybe be more understandable if the Director of National Intelligence hadn't made the statement he did [1], which was only a few days after the incident. Why wouldn't Twitter unlock their account then? So unless there is a huge conspiracy that you have evidence of where the DNI is straight up lying to everyone, I think it's fair to say that it's not misinformation from foreign parties. [1] "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, which purportedly show Joe Biden had involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings, are “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”... "He continued: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.” https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134...
  - rwoodley 6y ago
    Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal. But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it. Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They weren't expecting that.
    - 6y ago
bitwize 6y ago
If you insist on spreading hateful, proven-false conspiracy theories about a major-party presidential candidate, do not be surprised when reputable firms will not be complicit in such spread.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  It's a bit of a catch-22 for twitter. If the material is fake and proven to be false, then I don't think it can meet their definition of "hacked" content (unless some fake stuff is mixed in with real hacked data to make it appear more authentic). Even if it's real, it's a bit debatable whether or not it meets their definition of hacked content, especially since the rule has been ignored in the past (I suppose for tweets that were deemed in the public interest?) (More caveats- I'm assuming you're talking about Hunter Biden although he isnt a presidential candidate and AFAIK the post's article hasn't been proven false, although it's certainly worth being skeptical about. Especially given the sketchiness of the source)
- tathougies 6y ago
  Proven false? What are you talking about? A man is testifying in front of the Senate about the veracity of some of the claims under penalty of perjury... EDIT: honestly, as a conservative who was supportive of the investigation surrounding impeachment, this kind of obvious media double treatment makes me want to double down -- as other conservatives have done -- in simply not supporting conservatives being investigated. It seems obvious that the allegations, the narrative, etc, is tightly controlled by the media, and conservatives are not given a fair shake, while even the most minute details of conservatives are examined in agonous detail (remember the Steele dossier, which is now confirmed Russian disinformation?). If the Hunter Biden allegations are true around the Ukraine prosecutor, then the impeachment was clearly punishing a sitting president for investigating corruption. That is shocking.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    As a non-conservative, I’m with you. A large part of the left, including the media, have declined into total dishonesty and hypocrisy. They don’t even seem to realize it.
numpad0 6y ago
That’s their normal courses of action for account freezes. They programmatically freeze your account with the message “Twitter freezes accounts that violate Twitter Rules.” which criteria is just a /dev/urandom that apparently any average script kiddies can trigger at will. They don’t bother dealing with your complaints, but don’t bother with ban evasions either, so people either keep sending complaints until it reaches a human, or just create alternate accounts and try to spread your word that this alt is now your main account. You have to have built a network or position in a group that can handle these transitions. Isn’t that how Twitter works? That won’t change without some social media account rights movement and legislation.
- xadhominemx 6y ago
  The NYPost’s account was not frozen programmatically. And if they want to unfreeze their account they can do so by deleting the tweet that was manually flagged. They have not done so because they want to draw attention to themselves as an alleged victim of bias against conservative media outlets. Edit: is there a reason my factually sound comment is being downvoted?
  - newcomputer 6y ago
    There's no alleged about it. When far-left publisher, the Guardian, published a completely unverified Trump Russia dossier, they received no condemnation from Twitter. Yet, when the NY Post publishes proof of a Democrat illegally using his political office to enrich his family, all of sudden publishers need to start proving every last detail of their story before they can post to Twitter?
legitster 6y ago
What a hot mess. I am imagining those years of looking at terrible National Enquirer headlines at store checkouts. This kind of terrible reporting as always existed, but for some reason (luckily I guess) they never crossed over into national discourse the way that stories do online. I never begrudged the store for carrying them and selling them. If Wal-Mart suddenly felt the need to arbitrate on the accuracy of every periodical they sold, I'm not sure if I would feel better or worse. I also don't know how to handle the people who are saying the story is fake or terribly reported, but we have a right to be misinformed if we want to be.
- asdff 6y ago
  It's all about how it's packaged. In the grocery store under a gossip magazine about who cheated on who, and people roll their eyes. The same lie being shared by everyone from your cousins to the president of the united states tends to be seen a little different to the eyes of people who prefer to defer their critical thinking capacities to whoever is the loudest and most charismatic.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    Very well put. Social media wraps garbage with a false sense of legitimacy that's not found on checkout aisle shelves, and that's a big problem when such a large number of users lack either the skill or intention required to filter.
- pat2man 6y ago
  Tabloid essentially make up stores, so I would say they fall into the "fiction" category. This story is essentially Russian propaganda designed to destabilize the US election. It's a whole different category of content.
  - tomschlick 6y ago
    The Director of National Intelligence (director for all US Intel Agencies) has said it is not Russian disinformation. https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016 https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016
tbenst 6y ago
I’m reminded by the stories in 2016 on how the Pope has endorsed Donald Trump. Was it true? Not in the slightest. And yet these stories got millions of impressions. Enabling the spread of harmful, false, foreign-planted propaganda to spread like a cancer in our democracy is worth taking a moral stand over. Actors that propagate such falsehoods have earned their punishment. Equivocation in this thread to NYTimes publishing on Trump tax returns boggles the mind, and shows the sorry state of 2020. It’s reminiscent of how Trump redefined “fake news”—a phenomena associated almost exclusively with right-wing falsehoods masquerading as news—to mean “facts that are so damning of me that I construct a reality-distortion field to blind my followers”. I am dismayed by how many commenters here seemingly abandon objective Truth and descend into the anarchy of textual equivocation.
- 360walk 6y ago
  Here is an interesting study on NYTimes and fake news: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.... It makes the case that: 1) Adults in America saw hardly any fake news stories (on average one per person, massively dwarfed by real news and political ads) 2) Main Stream Media were far more "to blame", focusing on scandal instead of policy. They give an example of the NY times ran more front page stories on Hillary's emails in 10 days, than they ever ran on Trump/Hillary policy comparisons.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Great, but what does that have to do with the laptop, which came from Delaware and not Russia? You can’t spout a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian spies and then rail on about objective truth.
  - tbenst 6y ago
    I was specifically referring to the Pope story in that case. I have no idea if the Hunter Biden laptop is actually real, but our default assumption should be skepticism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-bid...
ralph84 6y ago
If Twitter wants to be a publisher, fine. Just stop sheltering them under Section 230. Make them fully liable for what they publish.
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  You say that as if that's not what Twitter wants. Jack Dorsey and Twitter's chief(?) legal counsel went on Joe Rogan and openly argued that Twitter is a publisher. They expressly waived Section 230 protection and thoroughly explained that their users do no publish content on Twitter, but merely provide Twitter with content that Twitter may choose to edit and publish as Twitter sees fit. They said Twitter makes thoughtful editorial decisions and chooses what content to publish. I don't agree. I think that's a lie. Twitter is a common-carrier and should not be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what Twitter is saying. Twitter very openly claiming to be a "publisher." Twitter wants you to say that.
- tzs 6y ago
  The whole point of section 230 was to let internet sites remove user supplied content they find objectionable without that making them liable for user supplied content that they do not remove.
karol 6y ago
It seems to work for me now: https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1316437892122710022 https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1316437892122710022
- uncoder0 6y ago
  Their page loads but they cannot access their account to make new tweets until they delete that post.
keiferski 6y ago
Honestly, I see this kind of action as good. The sooner the population at large realizes that Big Social aren't neutral players in the marketplace of ideas, the better. We need decentralized solutions, ASAP, and the only way that's going to happen is when normal people start caring.
- hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
  The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved (media companies and individuals wanting information), and so much inertia to keep using services like Facebook long after the user even likes the service. Some kind of regulatory pressure will be absolutely necessary.
  - barumi 6y ago
    > The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved It seems to me that having a respected publisher call out another publisher for having tried to peddle bullshit is an important contribution to reduce that asymmetry.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > We need decentralized solutions TBH maybe we just need to move on from social media instead.
  - manquer 6y ago
    It like the printing press, more wide spread availablity of content distribution is not going to go away. For all its flaws abilty produce content cheaply has created value too.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  I don't see how decentralization is feasible. The current technological trends are all towards more centralization.
repo001 6y ago
Stoped reading after the author made an equivalent comparison between NYT and Brietbart...I mean, you're not fooling anyone with the "un-biased, unaffiliated voter just searching for the truth" shtick. It's 2020 buddy, we see what you're doing.
- dsaavy 6y ago
  OP here, the statement mentioning Breitbart alongside the NYT isn't meant to make them equivalent. It's meant to point out that I follow media outlets with major influence for their respective audience. Breitbart is unfortunately a favorite for Republican audiences alongside Fox News, which is why they're mentioned. It's important to track media outlets that have large influence over Democrat and Republican audiences to be aware of what the parties will use as "evidence" to their position and the downfall of those sources.
  - zonzobonzo 6y ago
    true brietbart and fox are influential over their readers, bu t they cannot be compared to responsible publishers in respect to their commitment to the truth, and therefore do not deserve respect of those of us who are committed to the truth.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- bodono 6y ago
  Thank goodness you didn't step out of your filter bubble. A close one!
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    You can step out of your bubble without deliberately jumping directly into the manure pit.
  - rat87 6y ago
    I'll happily continue to ignore a racist propoganda outlet. I'll leave that to hate group reaserchers
martythemaniak 6y ago
dang threatened to turf me from HN because I paraphrased Masha Gessen's views on Trump, which is too political and/or troll-y for HN. This is fine, it's his turf and he can chuck me or anyone else out whenever he feels like it. Since people here think Twitter is in the wrong, my question is when do I get these protections on HN? Do I have to implement them on forums I run? How big does a company have to get before they have to implement these protections? Who oversees and enforces these things? How is "big" defined anyway? After all, HN is already bigger than Twitter was at some point. Do we use MAUs, DAUs? Number of words/day, etc?
zonzobonzo 6y ago
Lots of well reasoned arguments from some smart russian graduates on this story just 8 days out from the election.
ogre_codes 6y ago
The big problem with Twitter and Facebook is they have massive incentive to encourage lightning fast viral content. But there are big societal problems with viral content which contains lies and incites violence (or voter harassment, etc). So now they are trying to blame the individual sources which is effective to some extent except when the sources are hugely popular with certain segments of society. IMO the real solution is to massively slow all viral content's spread. That of course would damage the platforms, particularly if their competitors don't implement similar limits. So all the platforms are playing this kind of cat-and-mouse game and doing a piecemeal approach fraught with ethical and potential legal issues.
tomcam 6y ago
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Or on the side that Twitter thinks is the good side.
  - wow_yes 6y ago
    We are on the right side of history - progress always is. People like me are much more trustworthy because we're not motivated by greed, but for the desire for a better world.
    - jaywalk 6y ago
      "My idea of progress will always be correct, because I am a good person and people who disagree with me are not."
    - dcolkitt 6y ago
      History has no shortage of horrific atrocities carried out by people with a genuine desire to remake a better world.
      - brynjolf 6y ago
        And vice versa, the side that has been Conservative continue to be on the wrong side of history over abs over again, yet never fail to say the other side is to blame. Gay rights Women rights Liberty Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.
        vanattab 6y ago
        You might want to look up which party was more supportive of the 19th amendment and check which party supported ending slavery. "On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting."
dmcq2 6y ago
I'm in favor of twitter banning links until the New York Post blacks out the email addresses in its pictures. That sort of thing is not necessary for the story and lots of trolls reading them will simply destroy them. It looks like inciting harassment to me instead of press free speech.
newbie578 6y ago
Twitter should be careful as they curate more and more content. If you start curating content so much, at one point people will start expecting that from you and you will be liable for way much content than they can handle. I for one cannot wait for Dorsey and his crew to get a taste of their own medicine, since it doesn't matter if I disagree with GOP (let's face it, this is again a right vs left issue), I still believe they have a right to free speech.
freewilly1040 6y ago
The outrage over this move is so disingenuous. Reputable news outlets deemed this story to lack credibility, including the NY Post's more reputable (but still conservative, pro Trump!) sister publication, WSJ. It's not the NY Post's inherent right to inject misinformation into elections.
pvg 6y ago
Apparently unverified and unreleased tax returns are important for the public interest, but direct evidence of high-ranking US politician’s family member receiving a highly paid position without prior credentials is not of concern to the American public. There has been plenty of widely reported, direct evidence of the latter, it's not even a matter of dispute. The NYP piece was not 'direct evidence' of that. This is a pretty unserious piece of analysis, if you can call it that.
throwawaymanbot 6y ago
It is a politicized Murdoch owned newspaper, which essentially is a propaganda arm of the US hard right. Why is it being precious about all this? It can go to parler if it does not like this private business rules.
Vosporos 6y ago
Well well well, if these aren't the consequences of their own actions
root_axis 6y ago
So just visit nypost.com, don't rely on twitter for your news.
- shureluck 6y ago
  Exactly. Although to be fair, I dont think Twitter has figured out that it is now becoming “cool” and free advertising to be blocked by them. It is turning into a form of rebellion and “fighting against the man”. It is a badge of honor for a large segment of society right now. Basically, being banned by Twitter is becoming free advertising. I mean, look a this post by OP.
SirensOfTitan 6y ago
Large tech companies like Twitter and Facebook and media alike have suddenly come up with all sorts of new standards to justify blocking or not reporting the Hunter Biden documents. I find it grotesque and completely inappropriate. Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel. From Mikhail Bakunin: > Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to restrict it on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction. Despite the intentions of these companies, I find it fairly evident that censorship usually just reinforces the status quo. It's a terrible tactic for forward progress.
- ZeteticElench 6y ago
  " Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel." That is exactly what the fake Hunter Biden story is though. Blatant GOP propaganda released at a strategic moment to assist the re-election of Trump.
happyruss 6y ago
I bet it's unlocked after the election
kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
ALL ENTITIES ON THE INTERNET MUST DISSEMINATE RUDY GIULIANI'S OBVIOUS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. YOU MUST ALSO SPREAD AND AMPLIFY THE PRESIDENT'S PARTISAN MESSAGES. FAILURE TO COMPLY MEANS THAT A CONSERVATIVE SENATE WILL HAUL YOU IN FOR QUESTIONING. PLEASE SURRENDER CONTROL OF YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE NY POST AND THE ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK. NON-COMPLIANCE INVITES "REGULATION".
caseysoftware 6y ago
Personally, if [company] wants to filter or censor, go for it if and only if a) they disclose it and b) I can turn it off. We have a model for this already, it's called "safe search" When you filter without disclosing, you're stealing my agency and creating a situation for near-undetectable abuse.
rendall 6y ago
Before anyone brings up Section 230, let's all get up to speed on what it means, from an expert, Ken White @ Popehat: "Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen" https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of... TL;DR: No, moderating their site even in an egregiously, blatantly biased way won't make Twitter a "publisher" or make them lose Section 230 protections
graphov 6y ago
This doesn't look all that surprising after Twitter blocked the account and all web links to Bret Weinstein's Articles of Unity initiative 1.5 months ago without any explanation, and it still remains blocked.
escape_goat 6y ago
Twitter has not unlocked the New York Post's Twitter account because the New York Post has refused to delete six tweets. The New York Post can recover their Twitter account at any time by deleting those tweets.
wwwwwwwww 6y ago
Chilling Effect to let all know what will happen to them, if they don't follow the Business Party.
myko 6y ago
It's fake news pretending to be real news. All social media platforms should do a better job blocking disinformation like this. That said, all they need to do is delete the fake news Twitter asked them to, yet they won't. Why?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Except it isn’t fake news. The fact that you think it is, is a symptom of a huge problem.
riffic 6y ago
Nothing's stopping the New York Post from adopting the ActivityPub ecosystem.
einpoklum 6y ago
Old maxim: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (due to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, biographer of Voltaire) new maxim: > I disapprove of what you say, and will defend through your profile's death against your being able to say it.
username3 6y ago
Moderation on Facebook and Twitter can be solved by letting us choose our own moderators and moderation rules. Twitter has a toggle for obscene material. Give us a toggle for misinformation. Aether does this. You can choose your own moderator. https://getaether.net/ https://getaether.net/
oblib 6y ago
I'll probably get down voted for pointing this out but neither Hunter or Joe Biden have denied those files are legit. And Biden's lawyer hasn't denied he called and tried to get the files back. None of the reports I've seen casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the files have offered any proof they are not legit. I think it's fair to say the messengers (Rudy and Bannon) are certainly motivated by personal and political gain but I don't think they're stupid enough to knowingly try to pass off forged documents to smear the Bidens. So, with all that in mind I do find it queer that most all of the left leaning "News" organizations have focused on discrediting the legitimacy of the files without having any real evidence at all of them being forged or altered and for the most part I've not seen them reporting on what's in the files or alleged to be in them.
elif 6y ago
There seems to be a pervasive fear of covering topics that would influence the election which is rooted in the 2016 WikiLeaks releases. Obviously in this instance, there are political components in the reporting, but there are also undeniably components of truth as well. A healthy journalistic environment would dissect the facts from many angles and leave readers more informed. However, this recent trend of topic censoring adds confusion to the discussion while at the same time sowing distrust of media institutions. That is to say: it creates the precise environment in which an alternative reality can thrive. My biggest concern is that it will culminate in the president claiming victory next week, and the discussion of it in the media will be inherently incomplete and untrustworthy. That would be a real pickle for our country moving forward together. Edit: the irony of downvoting this take to 0 without responding is hilarious.
tamaharbor 6y ago
Twitter is assuring a Trump re-election.
richardARPANET 6y ago
The amount of election meddling done by Twitter/Google & Facebook this year will go down in history, and not in a good way.
hotpockets 6y ago
Wasn't this all about the publishing of Hunter Biden's personal information? A violation of Twitter's privacy policy, that they have always enforced. And yes, they have enforced it against journalists posting newsworthy information deleterious to Trump. "Twitter also said the Post article contained images that included personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, which is against the social network's rules. " Weird seeing disinfo get upvoted on Hacker News of all places.
- hotpockets 6y ago
  Haha, immediately downvoted, with no comments provided.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    You're downvoted because it wasn't hacked information.
    - hotpockets 6y ago
      My point is that that is not the reason for the account suspension. Twitter's policy is very clear and equally enforced! Here is a short video from a reporter that got a suspension for posting private info in a news article, and had to delete the post before getting unsuspended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU It would seem to make this case very clear. Right?
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        A who with 800 views versus the new york times. It's really not as clear as you want it to be. Now, at the same time I think the NYT should be able to publish this. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=en https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=...
        hotpockets 6y ago
scarmig 6y ago
> You can publish tax returns without exposing your sources There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Good, they shouldn't have tried to spread garbage, unvalidated information in order to try and undermine Biden's campaign. I guess they'll just have to stick to the fox news crowd and Trump followers.
zxcvbn4038 6y ago
This is fine - they are going to make an example out of Twitter, continuing to keep the Post’s account locked plays right into it. My guess is that we’ll see a direct sanction against Twitter, and some sort of legislation that will indirectly penalize the other big tech companies by increasing their liabilities.
SalimMcDoom 6y ago
Why is New York Post big deal?
whycombinater 6y ago
So many posts in here that don't expressly praise twabber for being our moral arbiter are grayed out.
spicyramen 6y ago
This is unacceptable in any democracy or a so-called public platform. In Latin America there's many newspapers, compared to the US, there are newspapers that still publish very bloody images in the back-page (drug cartels hits, accidents, etc), others which publish naked girls, others about anarchism, religion, local news/events mostly free. As a citizen you understand the spectrum of what quality journalism is vs the kind of crap that comes in all those publications mentioned before. Government or official journalist groups don't block them, just because the information is mainly false. This is a basic value in a democracy. Problem I see is that online platforms want to fight disinformation as a problem when is not a problem is the way the world operates. Humans have something called intelligence and people can distinguish a quality publication vs another one and even if not, is ok to read all types of things (as long as they are within the law). Problem is that Google and Twitter just publish what fits in their agenda. (Check PragerU case vs Youtube)

632 points by dsaavy 6y ago

So what happens when Biden probably wins? Will any criticism of our sitting President be punishable by banning from social media?

btbuildem 6y ago
Has criticism of the current president been banned?
- free_rms 6y ago
  More like mandated. But, I repeat, what happens when it's "our side" in power? Would leaks about malfeasance under his administration be "improperly sourced information"?
  - knowaveragejoe 6y ago
    If it seems like it's mandated, but it's not, then it's because a lot of people disagree(strongly) with the guy.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
javagram 6y ago
Unlikely. Remember, there were 10 separate investigations into Benghazi, for instance, and Twitter didn’t block any of them from being posted. No reason to suppose they will act differently for Biden. Their action here seems to be more out of fear of a pre-election bombshell similar to the 2016 “emails” that turned out to a nothingburger.
- free_rms 6y ago
  That was then, this is now. They are acting differently for Biden. Twitter's setting themselves up as the arbiter of what constitutes "properly sourced" information. What happens if there's another Snowden-type leak under Biden? Hacked materials, gathered without consent, potentially slanderous, definitely hurting the 'good guys' in this news cycle...
  - zonzobonzo 6y ago
    they aren't acting differently for Biden. They are acting responsibly to the American public. Do you support the destruction of truth free_rms?
  - rhizome 6y ago
    >They are acting differently for Biden. The difference is that right-wing trash usually comes directly from Trump, then republished in the tabloids. We've seen that get reined in a little in annotating his worst tweets and FB posts, but don't pretend there's an equivalence between their public communications.

r00fus 6y ago

Twitter is a private corporation and perhaps its best if we all realize that FB/Twitter/Google are biased agencies. That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.

codegladiator 6y ago
And suddenly twitter is a leftist corporation. Frankly I don't know whats the better way for twitter, its one of those doomed if you do, doomed if not.
- damagednoob 6y ago
  "Suddenly". You have to work really hard to make sure your timeline includes centre leaning views, never mind right leaning.
  - recursive 6y ago
    "centre leaning" Could you draw a diagram of this?
    - dylan604 6y ago
      ahhh, you are only thinking of a 2D diagram. Take your circle with a line splitting through the middle. Now, rotate it so that it is a sphere. Tilt it at 23 degress, and you'll have a center leaning image.
    - core-questions 6y ago
      Sure, it's called the Overton Window, and it moves over time. Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness <--> hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards the left in some way (more egalitarian/equalizing policies, more erosion of authoritative positions on social policies, etc). Conquest's Second Law is in effect! At any one time, the "center" is just the point of acceptable shared discourse between the organizations that control the 'poles' at the left and right extents of common discussion; anything past those poles is considered "extreme". For example, during our lifetimes, discussion of a topic like Gay Marriage has gone from being an extreme leftist social policy you couldn't discuss with people in polite company, to being a hot topic of common debate that even Obama said he would not legalize, to becoming official policy, and then even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more, pushing the topic as far to the right now as it was to the left 30 years ago. (I hold no judgement on the topic here, merely using it as an example for how the window of what is socially acceptable can shift, and the "center" shifts with it.)

Google234 6y ago

Twitter wants revenge for the embarrassment it faced.

quacked 6y ago

The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" aggregation site, and then I'll see it on the NY Post, and that's it. The other major news sites will only show edited versions of the raw video with their own commentary playing over it, or they won't release it at all. As a theoretical example- Immediately after event: Twitter: OH MY GOD look at this kid driving a schoolbus! <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus> Two hours after event: NY Post: Child seen driving school bus <35 second video of a kid driving a schoolbus> Twelve hours after event: NY Times: Child Arrested for School Bus Joyride <3 minute video, containing 18 seconds of footage from original video with expert analysis diagrammed on top>

edmundsauto 6y ago
Is the "time to publication" a useful metric, when the cost is accuracy? Once something incorrect is published, it has a lot more weight than a retraction/correction.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  I agree with you but I don't think that was the real essence of their criticism. It was more about releasing actual primary sources instead of a heavily edited version of their own narrative with very little of the prinary source remaining.
- Lammy 6y ago
  Tabloids aren’t new. Ever checked out the headlines in print at a grocery store check-out? If the NYPost want to be The Publication Who Cried Wolf and everything that comes with that reputation, let them.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Weren't they still able to do it on their own properties? Twitter has decided it doesn't want to amplify this kind of content, that seems reasonable.

codecamper 6y ago

NY Post aka Rupert Murdoch.

ummonk 6y ago

I mean, isn't it good when they uniformly apply policies against sharing illicitly obtained private content?

redthrowaway 6y ago
So why wasn't the NYT punished for publishing info from Trump's tax returns? The laptop story could at least be true. There is no way for the NYT to receive Trump's tax returns without someone committing a crime.
- slondr 6y ago
  NYT didn't publish Trump's tax returns, they published prose about supposed contents of Trump's tax returns. If the articles had PDFs of the documents at the bottom, Twitter should probably block them too. But they don't.
  - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
    And why do you think that's a meaningful distinction? No, I didn't publish a picture of your credit card, just the numbers on it.
    - pat2man 6y ago
      Journalists have been dealing with this for a long time. For instance they don't release information about minors accused of a crime even if they have access to it, but they do discuss the events that happened. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Which is even worse, because apparently they literally spread fake news due to their not understanding how estimated tax payments work. So, they illegally obtained something and then misreported on it without giving people the ability to verify their claims. I’m not even sure why they’re allowed to be on twitter in that case.

bmarquez 6y ago

Twitter's lack of transparency is depressing. If they're going to lock the NY Post account, they should put a notification on the page (and perhaps a reason why). Right now if you go to the NY Post Twitter it just looks like they voluntarily decided to stop tweeting, which is misinformation.

eli 6y ago
Is there any reason to think the NY Post didn't get a notification with a reason why?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  GP is arguing there should be a user-facing notification.
  - eli 6y ago
    Ah, yeah, that's fair. I could imagine there are also cases where people are happy there is no public notification. If I get in a heated twitter argument and say something over the line, I'd probably prefer Twitter just let me fix it quietly
vvillena 6y ago
As a counterpoint, Twitter as a company isn't forced to do any such thing, so if they think it can hurt its userbase and its revenue, it won't be done. Social media tries to establish a unique public forum, that gets policed by a single company. It's an unsustainable, doomed model. There's a reason the Internet as a whole is serviced by miriads of companies that are more or less forced to cooperate.
- vaccinator 6y ago
  But such massive companies probably should be held to standards similar to governments... they probably will eventually.
- hamsterOnWheel 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

Here's the NY Post on Twitter's update to their own hacked materials rule, which suggests that NY Post is not in violation of Twitter's updated policies: https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materials-guidelines-after-post-controversy/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-changes-hacked-materia... As a reminder, there are numerous past instances where Twitter did not apply the same policies that were used to shut down NY Post: https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoaxes-that-twitter-and-facebook-didnt-throttle-because-they-hurt-trump/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-hoax... This selective application of policy is evidence of Twitter's bias, which I assume results from the bias of their leadership team and employee base. A company this big, which this much influence, cannot be trusted to operate the digital public square for an entire nation, let alone the world. It is a threat to speech, since the reach of these platforms is such that speech effectively doesn't exist if it isn't on these platforms. We need competing platforms badly, but it is hard to challenge the first-mover advantage of network effects of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. Perhaps we simply need to instead regulate them so that they do not deplatform/censor content that does not break the law.

blhack 6y ago

To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator.

slondr 6y ago
Electrical power shouldn't be privately controlled.
- blhack 6y ago
  Maybe not, but it is.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    It may be privately owned, but regulatory control still exists, and prevents the scenario you're talking about. To the extent that the regulatory scheme fails, that is a problem when and where it happens. But I've never heard of a power company refusing to provide electricity to a customer due to political disagreements. At least not in the U.S.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with it being privately controlled. It was privately invented and developed, after all.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    How does it matter whether it was developed publicly, or privately? Deregulation in the late 90s led to the Enron scandal, so I think there are clear reasons why not to be privately owned.
    - 6y ago

nickthemagicman 6y ago

Twitters censorship just serves to further polarize and divide people. As the right bails on twitter and goes to pure conservative echo chambers and the left stays in their leftist echo chambers... any shared interactions are lost. Even though it's their right as a private company...its truly a shame that Twitter is acting like this.

Tokkemon 6y ago
If a faction of society that breeds on lies decides to self-isolate and/or act in a way to get pushed out of the mainstream, that shouldn't be a controversial action. The faction does it to themselves.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  I appreciate your opinions. This isn't a small fringe group. The right is almost 50% of the country. The fact that you're demonizing such a large group instead of attempting to understand them reveals a little of your fanaticism that you may not even be aware of.
war1025 6y ago
> As the right bails on twitter For what it's worth, I've stopped commenting on HackerNews because any even moderately pro-Trump opinion is met by the downvote brigade. In my opinion, interacting with strangers online is just a recipe for a bad time. I'd cease social media entirely, but I'm not allowed to be social out in the real world anymore, and work is too boring to stay focused for an entire work day.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  I'm very centrist so I respect and support aspects of both sides. I don't think the extreme left realizes it but they're just as fanatical as the right. I've had your same experiences on hacker news at times. It's a down vote brigade for anything counter to the progressive narrative whether it's Trump or Covid or Global Warming or other progressive ideas. It's a great site though and I have had some great conversations and learned a lot as long as you steer clear of the progressive agenda. Reddit is way worse. It makes hacker news look like The Wall Street Journal. There's a theory called horseshoe theory that claims that the fanatical left and right have more in common with each other than they do centrists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

eli 6y ago

The Post still hasn't deleted the offending tweet. Those are the rules: on a first violation of posting someone's personal information without permission you get your account locked until you delete the tweet.

dudul 6y ago
Is it what they finally settled on? because we've heard "we don't relay unverified news" and "we don't relay hacked information" as well.
- colordrops 6y ago
  Either way it's ridiculous. Most news is unverified. And the NY Post article wasn't hacked information.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
OliverGilan 6y ago
How do they delete the tweet if they're locked out of the account?
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  There's a separate flow where they've sent the NYPost an email detailing why their account has been suspended with a link to the Tweet in question and a link saying "Delete this Tweet". As soon as they delete it, their account will be reinstated. They've chosen not to delete for either "moral" reasons or "moral outrage" reasons, but the ball is in their court.
  - eznzt 6y ago
    Don't think the "the ball is in their court" thing applies when you don't really have a choice.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fareesh 6y ago

But, citizens of Detroit, OCP is a private company, they can do what they want!

zach_garwood 6y ago
Twitter has not been granted a law enforcement monopoly (nor any sort of monopoly) by the US government. If you want me to buy that for a dollar, your going to have to come up with a better analogy.

rwoodley 6y ago

Well the fact is the NY Times story is probably accurate and the NY Post story is extremely suspect. Twitter made a journalistic decision not to spread trash, possibly from Russia, that could have a real impact on our election result. Tough call, but the right call. If twitter sees itself as having some sort of moderator role than it has to make these judgement calls. Other outlets didn't amplify the Hunter Biden laptop story either. Even conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal decided it was too sketchy to spread. Twitter is trying to avoid being a platform for conspiracy theories and foreign intelligence agencies. It has to act.

dsaavy 6y ago
It would maybe be more understandable if the Director of National Intelligence hadn't made the statement he did [1], which was only a few days after the incident. Why wouldn't Twitter unlock their account then? So unless there is a huge conspiracy that you have evidence of where the DNI is straight up lying to everyone, I think it's fair to say that it's not misinformation from foreign parties. [1] "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said Hunter Biden’s recovered laptop and emails, which purportedly show Joe Biden had involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings, are “not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”... "He continued: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.” https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134549198.html https://news.yahoo.com/dni-ratcliffe-hunter-biden-emails-134...
- rwoodley 6y ago
  Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal. But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it. Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They weren't expecting that.
  - 6y ago

bitwize 6y ago

If you insist on spreading hateful, proven-false conspiracy theories about a major-party presidential candidate, do not be surprised when reputable firms will not be complicit in such spread.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
It's a bit of a catch-22 for twitter. If the material is fake and proven to be false, then I don't think it can meet their definition of "hacked" content (unless some fake stuff is mixed in with real hacked data to make it appear more authentic). Even if it's real, it's a bit debatable whether or not it meets their definition of hacked content, especially since the rule has been ignored in the past (I suppose for tweets that were deemed in the public interest?) (More caveats- I'm assuming you're talking about Hunter Biden although he isnt a presidential candidate and AFAIK the post's article hasn't been proven false, although it's certainly worth being skeptical about. Especially given the sketchiness of the source)
tathougies 6y ago
Proven false? What are you talking about? A man is testifying in front of the Senate about the veracity of some of the claims under penalty of perjury... EDIT: honestly, as a conservative who was supportive of the investigation surrounding impeachment, this kind of obvious media double treatment makes me want to double down -- as other conservatives have done -- in simply not supporting conservatives being investigated. It seems obvious that the allegations, the narrative, etc, is tightly controlled by the media, and conservatives are not given a fair shake, while even the most minute details of conservatives are examined in agonous detail (remember the Steele dossier, which is now confirmed Russian disinformation?). If the Hunter Biden allegations are true around the Ukraine prosecutor, then the impeachment was clearly punishing a sitting president for investigating corruption. That is shocking.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  As a non-conservative, I’m with you. A large part of the left, including the media, have declined into total dishonesty and hypocrisy. They don’t even seem to realize it.

numpad0 6y ago

That’s their normal courses of action for account freezes. They programmatically freeze your account with the message “Twitter freezes accounts that violate Twitter Rules.” which criteria is just a /dev/urandom that apparently any average script kiddies can trigger at will. They don’t bother dealing with your complaints, but don’t bother with ban evasions either, so people either keep sending complaints until it reaches a human, or just create alternate accounts and try to spread your word that this alt is now your main account. You have to have built a network or position in a group that can handle these transitions. Isn’t that how Twitter works? That won’t change without some social media account rights movement and legislation.

xadhominemx 6y ago
The NYPost’s account was not frozen programmatically. And if they want to unfreeze their account they can do so by deleting the tweet that was manually flagged. They have not done so because they want to draw attention to themselves as an alleged victim of bias against conservative media outlets. Edit: is there a reason my factually sound comment is being downvoted?
- newcomputer 6y ago
  There's no alleged about it. When far-left publisher, the Guardian, published a completely unverified Trump Russia dossier, they received no condemnation from Twitter. Yet, when the NY Post publishes proof of a Democrat illegally using his political office to enrich his family, all of sudden publishers need to start proving every last detail of their story before they can post to Twitter?

legitster 6y ago

What a hot mess. I am imagining those years of looking at terrible National Enquirer headlines at store checkouts. This kind of terrible reporting as always existed, but for some reason (luckily I guess) they never crossed over into national discourse the way that stories do online. I never begrudged the store for carrying them and selling them. If Wal-Mart suddenly felt the need to arbitrate on the accuracy of every periodical they sold, I'm not sure if I would feel better or worse. I also don't know how to handle the people who are saying the story is fake or terribly reported, but we have a right to be misinformed if we want to be.

asdff 6y ago
It's all about how it's packaged. In the grocery store under a gossip magazine about who cheated on who, and people roll their eyes. The same lie being shared by everyone from your cousins to the president of the united states tends to be seen a little different to the eyes of people who prefer to defer their critical thinking capacities to whoever is the loudest and most charismatic.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  Very well put. Social media wraps garbage with a false sense of legitimacy that's not found on checkout aisle shelves, and that's a big problem when such a large number of users lack either the skill or intention required to filter.
pat2man 6y ago
Tabloid essentially make up stores, so I would say they fall into the "fiction" category. This story is essentially Russian propaganda designed to destabilize the US election. It's a whole different category of content.
- tomschlick 6y ago
  The Director of National Intelligence (director for all US Intel Agencies) has said it is not Russian disinformation. https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016 https://twitter.com/i/events/1318222118421590016

tbenst 6y ago

I’m reminded by the stories in 2016 on how the Pope has endorsed Donald Trump. Was it true? Not in the slightest. And yet these stories got millions of impressions. Enabling the spread of harmful, false, foreign-planted propaganda to spread like a cancer in our democracy is worth taking a moral stand over. Actors that propagate such falsehoods have earned their punishment. Equivocation in this thread to NYTimes publishing on Trump tax returns boggles the mind, and shows the sorry state of 2020. It’s reminiscent of how Trump redefined “fake news”—a phenomena associated almost exclusively with right-wing falsehoods masquerading as news—to mean “facts that are so damning of me that I construct a reality-distortion field to blind my followers”. I am dismayed by how many commenters here seemingly abandon objective Truth and descend into the anarchy of textual equivocation.

360walk 6y ago
Here is an interesting study on NYTimes and fake news: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.... It makes the case that: 1) Adults in America saw hardly any fake news stories (on average one per person, massively dwarfed by real news and political ads) 2) Main Stream Media were far more "to blame", focusing on scandal instead of policy. They give an example of the NY times ran more front page stories on Hillary's emails in 10 days, than they ever ran on Trump/Hillary policy comparisons.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Great, but what does that have to do with the laptop, which came from Delaware and not Russia? You can’t spout a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian spies and then rail on about objective truth.
- tbenst 6y ago
  I was specifically referring to the Pope story in that case. I have no idea if the Hunter Biden laptop is actually real, but our default assumption should be skepticism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/24/hunter-bid...

ralph84 6y ago

If Twitter wants to be a publisher, fine. Just stop sheltering them under Section 230. Make them fully liable for what they publish.

goodluckchuck 6y ago
You say that as if that's not what Twitter wants. Jack Dorsey and Twitter's chief(?) legal counsel went on Joe Rogan and openly argued that Twitter is a publisher. They expressly waived Section 230 protection and thoroughly explained that their users do no publish content on Twitter, but merely provide Twitter with content that Twitter may choose to edit and publish as Twitter sees fit. They said Twitter makes thoughtful editorial decisions and chooses what content to publish. I don't agree. I think that's a lie. Twitter is a common-carrier and should not be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what Twitter is saying. Twitter very openly claiming to be a "publisher." Twitter wants you to say that.
tzs 6y ago
The whole point of section 230 was to let internet sites remove user supplied content they find objectionable without that making them liable for user supplied content that they do not remove.

karol 6y ago

It seems to work for me now: https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1316437892122710022 https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1316437892122710022

uncoder0 6y ago
Their page loads but they cannot access their account to make new tweets until they delete that post.

keiferski 6y ago

Honestly, I see this kind of action as good. The sooner the population at large realizes that Big Social aren't neutral players in the marketplace of ideas, the better. We need decentralized solutions, ASAP, and the only way that's going to happen is when normal people start caring.

hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved (media companies and individuals wanting information), and so much inertia to keep using services like Facebook long after the user even likes the service. Some kind of regulatory pressure will be absolutely necessary.
- barumi 6y ago
  > The market-based solution depends on assumptions about people acting "rationally," which isn't possible with such asymmetry of information between the parties involved It seems to me that having a respected publisher call out another publisher for having tried to peddle bullshit is an important contribution to reduce that asymmetry.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> We need decentralized solutions TBH maybe we just need to move on from social media instead.
- manquer 6y ago
  It like the printing press, more wide spread availablity of content distribution is not going to go away. For all its flaws abilty produce content cheaply has created value too.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
I don't see how decentralization is feasible. The current technological trends are all towards more centralization.

repo001 6y ago

Stoped reading after the author made an equivalent comparison between NYT and Brietbart...I mean, you're not fooling anyone with the "un-biased, unaffiliated voter just searching for the truth" shtick. It's 2020 buddy, we see what you're doing.

dsaavy 6y ago
OP here, the statement mentioning Breitbart alongside the NYT isn't meant to make them equivalent. It's meant to point out that I follow media outlets with major influence for their respective audience. Breitbart is unfortunately a favorite for Republican audiences alongside Fox News, which is why they're mentioned. It's important to track media outlets that have large influence over Democrat and Republican audiences to be aware of what the parties will use as "evidence" to their position and the downfall of those sources.
- zonzobonzo 6y ago
  true brietbart and fox are influential over their readers, bu t they cannot be compared to responsible publishers in respect to their commitment to the truth, and therefore do not deserve respect of those of us who are committed to the truth.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bodono 6y ago
Thank goodness you didn't step out of your filter bubble. A close one!
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  You can step out of your bubble without deliberately jumping directly into the manure pit.
- rat87 6y ago
  I'll happily continue to ignore a racist propoganda outlet. I'll leave that to hate group reaserchers

martythemaniak 6y ago

dang threatened to turf me from HN because I paraphrased Masha Gessen's views on Trump, which is too political and/or troll-y for HN. This is fine, it's his turf and he can chuck me or anyone else out whenever he feels like it. Since people here think Twitter is in the wrong, my question is when do I get these protections on HN? Do I have to implement them on forums I run? How big does a company have to get before they have to implement these protections? Who oversees and enforces these things? How is "big" defined anyway? After all, HN is already bigger than Twitter was at some point. Do we use MAUs, DAUs? Number of words/day, etc?

zonzobonzo 6y ago

Lots of well reasoned arguments from some smart russian graduates on this story just 8 days out from the election.

ogre_codes 6y ago

The big problem with Twitter and Facebook is they have massive incentive to encourage lightning fast viral content. But there are big societal problems with viral content which contains lies and incites violence (or voter harassment, etc). So now they are trying to blame the individual sources which is effective to some extent except when the sources are hugely popular with certain segments of society. IMO the real solution is to massively slow all viral content's spread. That of course would damage the platforms, particularly if their competitors don't implement similar limits. So all the platforms are playing this kind of cat-and-mouse game and doing a piecemeal approach fraught with ethical and potential legal issues.

tomcam 6y ago

Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Or on the side that Twitter thinks is the good side.
- wow_yes 6y ago
  We are on the right side of history - progress always is. People like me are much more trustworthy because we're not motivated by greed, but for the desire for a better world.
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    "My idea of progress will always be correct, because I am a good person and people who disagree with me are not."
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    History has no shortage of horrific atrocities carried out by people with a genuine desire to remake a better world.
    - brynjolf 6y ago
      And vice versa, the side that has been Conservative continue to be on the wrong side of history over abs over again, yet never fail to say the other side is to blame. Gay rights Women rights Liberty Always one side saying let's wait a bit longer, let's listen to our lies for a bit longer.
      - vanattab 6y ago
        You might want to look up which party was more supportive of the 19th amendment and check which party supported ending slavery. "On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster, 36 Republican Senators were joined by 20 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 yeas, 25 nays, and 14 not voting."

dmcq2 6y ago

I'm in favor of twitter banning links until the New York Post blacks out the email addresses in its pictures. That sort of thing is not necessary for the story and lots of trolls reading them will simply destroy them. It looks like inciting harassment to me instead of press free speech.

newbie578 6y ago

Twitter should be careful as they curate more and more content. If you start curating content so much, at one point people will start expecting that from you and you will be liable for way much content than they can handle. I for one cannot wait for Dorsey and his crew to get a taste of their own medicine, since it doesn't matter if I disagree with GOP (let's face it, this is again a right vs left issue), I still believe they have a right to free speech.

freewilly1040 6y ago

The outrage over this move is so disingenuous. Reputable news outlets deemed this story to lack credibility, including the NY Post's more reputable (but still conservative, pro Trump!) sister publication, WSJ. It's not the NY Post's inherent right to inject misinformation into elections.

pvg 6y ago

Apparently unverified and unreleased tax returns are important for the public interest, but direct evidence of high-ranking US politician’s family member receiving a highly paid position without prior credentials is not of concern to the American public. There has been plenty of widely reported, direct evidence of the latter, it's not even a matter of dispute. The NYP piece was not 'direct evidence' of that. This is a pretty unserious piece of analysis, if you can call it that.

throwawaymanbot 6y ago

It is a politicized Murdoch owned newspaper, which essentially is a propaganda arm of the US hard right. Why is it being precious about all this? It can go to parler if it does not like this private business rules.

Vosporos 6y ago

Well well well, if these aren't the consequences of their own actions

root_axis 6y ago

So just visit nypost.com, don't rely on twitter for your news.

shureluck 6y ago
Exactly. Although to be fair, I dont think Twitter has figured out that it is now becoming “cool” and free advertising to be blocked by them. It is turning into a form of rebellion and “fighting against the man”. It is a badge of honor for a large segment of society right now. Basically, being banned by Twitter is becoming free advertising. I mean, look a this post by OP.

SirensOfTitan 6y ago

Large tech companies like Twitter and Facebook and media alike have suddenly come up with all sorts of new standards to justify blocking or not reporting the Hunter Biden documents. I find it grotesque and completely inappropriate. Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel. From Mikhail Bakunin: > Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to restrict it on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction. Despite the intentions of these companies, I find it fairly evident that censorship usually just reinforces the status quo. It's a terrible tactic for forward progress.

ZeteticElench 6y ago
" Democracy is not a bunch of educated elites (and most of the "respected" media is white and ivy-league educated) telling the unwashed masses what to think and how to feel." That is exactly what the fake Hunter Biden story is though. Blatant GOP propaganda released at a strategic moment to assist the re-election of Trump.

happyruss 6y ago

I bet it's unlocked after the election

kilo_bravo_3 6y ago

ALL ENTITIES ON THE INTERNET MUST DISSEMINATE RUDY GIULIANI'S OBVIOUS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. YOU MUST ALSO SPREAD AND AMPLIFY THE PRESIDENT'S PARTISAN MESSAGES. FAILURE TO COMPLY MEANS THAT A CONSERVATIVE SENATE WILL HAUL YOU IN FOR QUESTIONING. PLEASE SURRENDER CONTROL OF YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE NY POST AND THE ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK. NON-COMPLIANCE INVITES "REGULATION".

caseysoftware 6y ago

Personally, if [company] wants to filter or censor, go for it if and only if a) they disclose it and b) I can turn it off. We have a model for this already, it's called "safe search" When you filter without disclosing, you're stealing my agency and creating a situation for near-undetectable abuse.

rendall 6y ago

Before anyone brings up Section 230, let's all get up to speed on what it means, from an expert, Ken White @ Popehat: "Section 230 Is The Subject of The Most Effective Legal Propaganda I've Ever Seen" https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of... TL;DR: No, moderating their site even in an egregiously, blatantly biased way won't make Twitter a "publisher" or make them lose Section 230 protections

graphov 6y ago

This doesn't look all that surprising after Twitter blocked the account and all web links to Bret Weinstein's Articles of Unity initiative 1.5 months ago without any explanation, and it still remains blocked.

escape_goat 6y ago

Twitter has not unlocked the New York Post's Twitter account because the New York Post has refused to delete six tweets. The New York Post can recover their Twitter account at any time by deleting those tweets.

wwwwwwwww 6y ago

Chilling Effect to let all know what will happen to them, if they don't follow the Business Party.

myko 6y ago

It's fake news pretending to be real news. All social media platforms should do a better job blocking disinformation like this. That said, all they need to do is delete the fake news Twitter asked them to, yet they won't. Why?

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Except it isn’t fake news. The fact that you think it is, is a symptom of a huge problem.

riffic 6y ago

Nothing's stopping the New York Post from adopting the ActivityPub ecosystem.

einpoklum 6y ago

Old maxim: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (due to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, biographer of Voltaire) new maxim: > I disapprove of what you say, and will defend through your profile's death against your being able to say it.

username3 6y ago

Moderation on Facebook and Twitter can be solved by letting us choose our own moderators and moderation rules. Twitter has a toggle for obscene material. Give us a toggle for misinformation. Aether does this. You can choose your own moderator. https://getaether.net/ https://getaether.net/

oblib 6y ago

I'll probably get down voted for pointing this out but neither Hunter or Joe Biden have denied those files are legit. And Biden's lawyer hasn't denied he called and tried to get the files back. None of the reports I've seen casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the files have offered any proof they are not legit. I think it's fair to say the messengers (Rudy and Bannon) are certainly motivated by personal and political gain but I don't think they're stupid enough to knowingly try to pass off forged documents to smear the Bidens. So, with all that in mind I do find it queer that most all of the left leaning "News" organizations have focused on discrediting the legitimacy of the files without having any real evidence at all of them being forged or altered and for the most part I've not seen them reporting on what's in the files or alleged to be in them.

elif 6y ago

There seems to be a pervasive fear of covering topics that would influence the election which is rooted in the 2016 WikiLeaks releases. Obviously in this instance, there are political components in the reporting, but there are also undeniably components of truth as well. A healthy journalistic environment would dissect the facts from many angles and leave readers more informed. However, this recent trend of topic censoring adds confusion to the discussion while at the same time sowing distrust of media institutions. That is to say: it creates the precise environment in which an alternative reality can thrive. My biggest concern is that it will culminate in the president claiming victory next week, and the discussion of it in the media will be inherently incomplete and untrustworthy. That would be a real pickle for our country moving forward together. Edit: the irony of downvoting this take to 0 without responding is hilarious.

tamaharbor 6y ago

Twitter is assuring a Trump re-election.

richardARPANET 6y ago

The amount of election meddling done by Twitter/Google & Facebook this year will go down in history, and not in a good way.

hotpockets 6y ago

Wasn't this all about the publishing of Hunter Biden's personal information? A violation of Twitter's privacy policy, that they have always enforced. And yes, they have enforced it against journalists posting newsworthy information deleterious to Trump. "Twitter also said the Post article contained images that included personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, which is against the social network's rules. " Weird seeing disinfo get upvoted on Hacker News of all places.

hotpockets 6y ago
Haha, immediately downvoted, with no comments provided.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  You're downvoted because it wasn't hacked information.
  - hotpockets 6y ago
    My point is that that is not the reason for the account suspension. Twitter's policy is very clear and equally enforced! Here is a short video from a reporter that got a suspension for posting private info in a news article, and had to delete the post before getting unsuspended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loylqtvKAbU It would seem to make this case very clear. Right?
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      A who with 800 views versus the new york times. It's really not as clear as you want it to be. Now, at the same time I think the NYT should be able to publish this. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=en https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310336685574680578?lang=...
      - hotpockets 6y ago

scarmig 6y ago

> You can publish tax returns without exposing your sources There's no reason to think this. It's increasingly common for security-conscious organizations to watermark documents to identify who accessed it. See, for instance, how the Intercept "accidentally" burnt a source by publishing her raw documents about Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That said, the New York Times has some level of credibility, and the Post doesn't. You can't simply demand that the Post be treated with a level of respect just because you agree with its slant. Perhaps if the Post published the email metadata which would instantly prove authenticity I'd feel a bit worse for it. Until then, though, I'll continue to assume it's just trying to launder a smear campaign, whether that smear campaign originated from foreign intelligence services or domestic slimeball political operatives.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Good, they shouldn't have tried to spread garbage, unvalidated information in order to try and undermine Biden's campaign. I guess they'll just have to stick to the fox news crowd and Trump followers.

zxcvbn4038 6y ago

This is fine - they are going to make an example out of Twitter, continuing to keep the Post’s account locked plays right into it. My guess is that we’ll see a direct sanction against Twitter, and some sort of legislation that will indirectly penalize the other big tech companies by increasing their liabilities.

SalimMcDoom 6y ago

Why is New York Post big deal?

whycombinater 6y ago

So many posts in here that don't expressly praise twabber for being our moral arbiter are grayed out.

spicyramen 6y ago

This is unacceptable in any democracy or a so-called public platform. In Latin America there's many newspapers, compared to the US, there are newspapers that still publish very bloody images in the back-page (drug cartels hits, accidents, etc), others which publish naked girls, others about anarchism, religion, local news/events mostly free. As a citizen you understand the spectrum of what quality journalism is vs the kind of crap that comes in all those publications mentioned before. Government or official journalist groups don't block them, just because the information is mainly false. This is a basic value in a democracy. Problem I see is that online platforms want to fight disinformation as a problem when is not a problem is the way the world operates. Humans have something called intelligence and people can distinguish a quality publication vs another one and even if not, is ok to read all types of things (as long as they are within the law). Problem is that Google and Twitter just publish what fits in their agenda. (Check PragerU case vs Youtube)