4 ms·

Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources, which prevents many stories from being independently verified. However they can be verified by other ne

Journalists have an obligation to protect their sources, which prevents many stories from being independently verified. However they can be verified by other news outlets, who have their own sources. The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP. But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit. The "double standard" idea makes my blood boil, because it casts basic facts in partisan terms. Twitter fact-checked Trump tweets, but not Biden tweets. But that's not a double standard; it's a single standard, and it just so happens that Biden does not tweet outright lies such as "California sends a ballot to anyone living in the state." Twitter clearly does not want to be in this position and the right-wing misinformation machine is exploiting that aggressively. The NYPost story got a huge Streisand-effect boost. It's impossible to give Twitter good advice today.

NeverFade 6y ago
The NYP story was blocked by Twitter and Facebook immediately upon publication. Why wasn't the "losers and suckers" story likewise blocked until it was verified? Both stories had no external verification upon publication. One was blocked immediately. The other never was. > The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP. One can't "independently" verify a story based purely on anonymous sources. Can you link these alleged verifications? > But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit. Not true. The NYP story cited sources, and these sources have seen been verified, for example by the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Your comment that they never asked Biden to comment is likewise untrue. This would be plainly ridiculous: all we'd need to know if a story is true is to see if they asked for a comment from the subject. In fact, plenty of untrue stories ask for these comments. Why wouldn't they? Do they want to make it obvious they are false?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The NYP asked for comment. What they didn't do was show Biden the laptop or documents they claimed were authentic. Then they ran a claim that Biden refused to refute the documents (without admitting that they refused to show him the documents or laptop.)
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    So we are now holding the NYP to impossible standards that no other publication must meet. A paper is not even required to ask for a comment from a subject of an expose. Thousands of stories are posted on Twitter every day by news outlets that did not request or include a response from their subject. Now we have people claiming that not only does NYP have to request a response from its subject, it must also provide them the subject with source material for their article. Ridiculous. Also, Joe Biden isn't even the subject of the NYP article - Hunter Biden is. Yet you are implying that Joe Biden must have been given the full source materials of the article and an opportunity to examine and respond to them, or else Twitter can block the story. Was Trump afforded the same opportunity to examine the source material of the NYT story about his supposed tax returns? The NYT still hasn't released that source material!

NeverFade 6y ago

The NYP story was blocked by Twitter and Facebook immediately upon publication. Why wasn't the "losers and suckers" story likewise blocked until it was verified? Both stories had no external verification upon publication. One was blocked immediately. The other never was. > The "losers and suckers" story was independently verified by NYT, WaPo, and AP. One can't "independently" verify a story based purely on anonymous sources. Can you link these alleged verifications? > But the NYPost has not been verified by anyone, nor they did seek verification, nor did they even ask Biden for comment, because they know the story is bullshit. Not true. The NYP story cited sources, and these sources have seen been verified, for example by the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Your comment that they never asked Biden to comment is likewise untrue. This would be plainly ridiculous: all we'd need to know if a story is true is to see if they asked for a comment from the subject. In fact, plenty of untrue stories ask for these comments. Why wouldn't they? Do they want to make it obvious they are false?

srtjstjsj 6y ago
The NYP asked for comment. What they didn't do was show Biden the laptop or documents they claimed were authentic. Then they ran a claim that Biden refused to refute the documents (without admitting that they refused to show him the documents or laptop.)
- NeverFade 6y ago
  So we are now holding the NYP to impossible standards that no other publication must meet. A paper is not even required to ask for a comment from a subject of an expose. Thousands of stories are posted on Twitter every day by news outlets that did not request or include a response from their subject. Now we have people claiming that not only does NYP have to request a response from its subject, it must also provide them the subject with source material for their article. Ridiculous. Also, Joe Biden isn't even the subject of the NYP article - Hunter Biden is. Yet you are implying that Joe Biden must have been given the full source materials of the article and an opportunity to examine and respond to them, or else Twitter can block the story. Was Trump afforded the same opportunity to examine the source material of the NYT story about his supposed tax returns? The NYT still hasn't released that source material!