4 ms·

>> as it announced a takedown of the German anti-COVID restrictions Querdenken movement. I don't know if that group used any particularly bad tactics, but on t

>> as it announced a takedown of the German anti-COVID restrictions Querdenken movement. I don't know if that group used any particularly bad tactics, but on the surface that statement sounds like squashing free speech. IDK about germany, but I'm sure FB will do that in the US too. All because "it's our private platform and we are not the government so no first amendment here".

mc32 5y ago
Nikki Minaj of all people was suspended by Twitter because she mentioned friends of hers had a bad reaction to a particular vaccine. Like what the eff. People can’t even freely mention an anecdote anymore if it is contrary to the set narrative? What the eff happened to us in the last two years? It’s frankly, disgusting and very concerning.
- SSilver2k2 5y ago
  Twitter can suspend anyone and anything for any reason. You play on someone else's server you play by their terms. Nothing is stopping Nikki from hosting her own website.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > Twitter can suspend anyone and anything for any reason. You play on someone else's server you play by their terms. Yes, but then, why should there be laws that shield these services from any legal responsibility as to what their users post? The government shouldn't need to protect these businesses either and let them off the hook because of the scale of the moderation. it goes both ways. Private companies can accept whatever they want, the government doesn't have to protect them either, they are a private company after all. They should bear all the risk.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      Why does it go both ways? The symmetry isn’t obvious. I can kick you out of my house for whatever reason but I’m not automatically complicit if I let you visit and you pull out a rifle and shoot someone out the window when I wasn’t looking. That is right. And it should be that way.
      - d110af5ccf 5y ago
        My personal residence doesn't serve as a chosen communications venue for a significant fraction of the local populous. Network effects are real. Failing to consider them is specious. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily in favor of preventing these companies from moderating things. It just concerns me to see such obvious aspects disregarded.
        renewiltord 5y ago
        Sure, but one still has to demonstrate a reason for the symmetry. It is certainly not self evident.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Sure. An individual can’t count on a message being carried, yeah we know, it’s a private company and all… But… it should concern people the concerted effort to censor anything including the truth if it doesn’t fit a particular narrative. What is Twitter decided hey, they wanna be on the side of the police and now anyone reporting anything that goes against the police narrative gets banned, true or made up. Does that sound okay? It’s effed up of people think that that’s okay because they are a private company and it’s their platform…
- cjensen 5y ago
  That's not what happened. Minaj claimed "a friend of a cousin" had a simply impossible side effect. This is pretty clearly a simple case of an urban legend being shortened from "friend of a friend of a friend" and so the rumor always gets passed on as "friend of a friend" no matter how many links there are in the chain. Did you notice that you shortened it from "Minaj claimed a friend of a cousin..." to "Minaj claimed a friend...?" Hey, you're human too just like all of us. We suck at passing along rumors.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Let’s say it’s unsubstantiated rumor (she said it was her (not ‘a’) cousin’s friend) What every medical rumor gets knocked out? Only the ones they don’t like? What makes them the right decision makers to decide? It’s no different from the banning of the Wuhan lab escape theory that was banned because… I dunno some republican happened to like it? Meanwhile lots of virologists believed it should at least be investigated. But no, originally only racists could consider it as a possibility. No, Twitter can eff off.
    - yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
      Funny how all the "comspiracy theories" like the Wuhan Lab leak later get confirmed to be true.
- paxys 5y ago
  Literally everything you said is false. Nikki Minaj didn't tweet about a "bad reaction" but a completely fabricated third or fourth hand story about someone's balls swelling up. She was also not banned. Twitter literally said they were taking no action against her. Nikki then tried to rile up her fans by crying "I'm getting cancelled" despite the fact that she was clearly not.
  - mc32 5y ago
    We don't know. Maybe she is maybe she isn't. Regardless Twitter is not an official record of anything and additionally they are selective with regard to what inaccuracies they censor. That said, apparently swollen testes are reported in the VAERS as a reaction to the vaccine. Not a great amount but also non-zero.
- yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
  Talk too much truth in here and you will get flagged or cancelled too. Big pharma is in charge of HN too
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pandeiro 5y ago
Yeah how did I know the first actual concrete example would involve COVID? jfc
- kongin 5y ago
  The second will be Nazis. The third pedophiles. The fourth BLM, or some type of socialist. At that point you've built up enough bipartisan support to remove everyone from the platform who might possibly threaten ad revenue. Unfortunately you've also made the platform so boring people will leave at the first chance.

mc32 5y ago

Nikki Minaj of all people was suspended by Twitter because she mentioned friends of hers had a bad reaction to a particular vaccine. Like what the eff. People can’t even freely mention an anecdote anymore if it is contrary to the set narrative? What the eff happened to us in the last two years? It’s frankly, disgusting and very concerning.

SSilver2k2 5y ago
Twitter can suspend anyone and anything for any reason. You play on someone else's server you play by their terms. Nothing is stopping Nikki from hosting her own website.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > Twitter can suspend anyone and anything for any reason. You play on someone else's server you play by their terms. Yes, but then, why should there be laws that shield these services from any legal responsibility as to what their users post? The government shouldn't need to protect these businesses either and let them off the hook because of the scale of the moderation. it goes both ways. Private companies can accept whatever they want, the government doesn't have to protect them either, they are a private company after all. They should bear all the risk.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Why does it go both ways? The symmetry isn’t obvious. I can kick you out of my house for whatever reason but I’m not automatically complicit if I let you visit and you pull out a rifle and shoot someone out the window when I wasn’t looking. That is right. And it should be that way.
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      My personal residence doesn't serve as a chosen communications venue for a significant fraction of the local populous. Network effects are real. Failing to consider them is specious. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily in favor of preventing these companies from moderating things. It just concerns me to see such obvious aspects disregarded.
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        Sure, but one still has to demonstrate a reason for the symmetry. It is certainly not self evident.
- mc32 5y ago
  Sure. An individual can’t count on a message being carried, yeah we know, it’s a private company and all… But… it should concern people the concerted effort to censor anything including the truth if it doesn’t fit a particular narrative. What is Twitter decided hey, they wanna be on the side of the police and now anyone reporting anything that goes against the police narrative gets banned, true or made up. Does that sound okay? It’s effed up of people think that that’s okay because they are a private company and it’s their platform…
cjensen 5y ago
That's not what happened. Minaj claimed "a friend of a cousin" had a simply impossible side effect. This is pretty clearly a simple case of an urban legend being shortened from "friend of a friend of a friend" and so the rumor always gets passed on as "friend of a friend" no matter how many links there are in the chain. Did you notice that you shortened it from "Minaj claimed a friend of a cousin..." to "Minaj claimed a friend...?" Hey, you're human too just like all of us. We suck at passing along rumors.
- mc32 5y ago
  Let’s say it’s unsubstantiated rumor (she said it was her (not ‘a’) cousin’s friend) What every medical rumor gets knocked out? Only the ones they don’t like? What makes them the right decision makers to decide? It’s no different from the banning of the Wuhan lab escape theory that was banned because… I dunno some republican happened to like it? Meanwhile lots of virologists believed it should at least be investigated. But no, originally only racists could consider it as a possibility. No, Twitter can eff off.
  - yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
    Funny how all the "comspiracy theories" like the Wuhan Lab leak later get confirmed to be true.
paxys 5y ago
Literally everything you said is false. Nikki Minaj didn't tweet about a "bad reaction" but a completely fabricated third or fourth hand story about someone's balls swelling up. She was also not banned. Twitter literally said they were taking no action against her. Nikki then tried to rile up her fans by crying "I'm getting cancelled" despite the fact that she was clearly not.
- mc32 5y ago
  We don't know. Maybe she is maybe she isn't. Regardless Twitter is not an official record of anything and additionally they are selective with regard to what inaccuracies they censor. That said, apparently swollen testes are reported in the VAERS as a reaction to the vaccine. Not a great amount but also non-zero.
yoloyoloyoloa 5y ago
Talk too much truth in here and you will get flagged or cancelled too. Big pharma is in charge of HN too

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pandeiro 5y ago

Yeah how did I know the first actual concrete example would involve COVID? jfc

kongin 5y ago
The second will be Nazis. The third pedophiles. The fourth BLM, or some type of socialist. At that point you've built up enough bipartisan support to remove everyone from the platform who might possibly threaten ad revenue. Unfortunately you've also made the platform so boring people will leave at the first chance.