5 ms·

There are plenty of reputable journalists closely following the trial including Julie K Brown, the Miami based reporter whose story broke the whole thing open a

There are plenty of reputable journalists closely following the trial including Julie K Brown, the Miami based reporter whose story broke the whole thing open a few years ago leading to these arrests: https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist Adam Klasfeld is another one I enjoy: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Are you saying Twitter banned this group because there was already other people reporting on the topic? Is that a standard in the TOS, that “First!” is an actionable internet rule?
- MrPatan 5y ago
  "reputable", no less.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Well rather than reading anonymous accounts who aggregate what real journalists are reporting from the courtroom while interspersing random conspiracy theories, it seemed useful to just link to the real journalists directly. An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      “real journalists”, hmm, there it is again.
      - MrPatan 5y ago
        I wonder why those real reputable journalists wont get their twitters deleted. Ah! hold on, I know, it's because they are real and reputable. I'm so dumb, sorry.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        Real journalists as in they're literally in the courtroom reporting from the trial, and one of them wrote the series of articles that broke the Epstein thing wide open... vs. randos on Twitter just cribbing their reporting while writing "THREAD" at the top. How is it remotely controversial to prefer primary sources.. As much as it annoys the very online, reporting isn't just writing twitter threads with your opinions, it actually takes fact finding effort.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Fair but it’s an appeal to authority and skirts true Scotsman but… never the less on occasion reputable journalists are leveraged to plant narratives on behalf of interested parties because they are reputable, so there is that. It’s not as though very wealthy people were not ensnared by mr Epstein and would love to keep their involvement low key.
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        I mean, Julie K. Brown wrote like 30? articles about it, talked to 60+ victims, her reporting lead to Epstein's arrest, Acosta's resignation, Maxwell's trial -- I don't think she's "on the take". https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein Is it an appeal to authority to trust a primary source who is literally in the courtroom every day, instead of a random anonymous Twitter account just cribbing from primary sources?
        mc32 5y ago
        I grant you she’s doing a good job, but that does not grant her a monopoly on fact. If only accredited journalists are allowed to report then we have no Wikileaks, no citizen journalism etc. Twitter is in the wrong to suppress an account on account of “artificially” inflating engagement. First, they don’t have to present evidence and second What news organ doesn’t create artificial engagement? It’s a preposterous excuse.
        pessimizer 5y ago
        > If only accredited journalists are allowed to report You are not replying to anyone who has suggested this. Anyway, the government licensing of journalists is at least 5 years off.
        fennecfoxen 5y ago
        US government licensing of journalists would be quickly struck down as unconstitutional. It’s not a free press if you need permission.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
By handwaving this away I take it you're ok with Twitter deciding who is "reputable" and a "journalist"? There's no evidence this account violated the Twitter TOS.
- jamal-kumar 5y ago
  Bruh I'm just happy someone linked someone else at all. These are current events, moving targets... Squabbling in the comments like that is more of a destructive distraction than anything
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    Is it not demonstrative of my point that this person immediately hand waves away twitter banning this account then immediately suggests that you use two blue checkmarks instead?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It's possible you're reading too much into that comment. The GP may simply have been providing a PSA about where they have found useful information given that one potential source has been removed. From HN community guidelines on reading into a comment: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  - nahqz 5y ago
    I think the "reputable" word is what gave the commenter away.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Why? They're saying they have people they believe are reputable. Again, reading into that to assume the commenter intended to say the banned account was sending out bad information violates the community guidelines of "plausible interpretation." Is it plausible that the commenter merely meant "Hey, here's some reputable sources"? Seems possible to me. If one store goes out of business and I say "Here are two store that I consider reputable for buying the same things", that really doesn't mean I think the original store was not reputable. The comment does not at all read to me as justification for the ban one way or another. It is a simple statement that there are sources the commenter trusts on the topic, with a referral to them.
bko 5y ago
Great. Why did twitter delete this one?
- Traster 5y ago
  Doesn't it seem a pretty strong indicator that the claim they got censored for reporting on Maxwell is untrue because more popular, more credible people aren't being suspended. If the goal is to supress news about Maxwell it seems pretty clear that suspending some small anonymous account would not acheive that.
  - bko 5y ago
    > more credible people aren't being suspended yes, but this one was the most popular. If they're looking at suppressing news or attention, they'd want to ban the most popular, not the most credible necessarily.
    - Traster 5y ago
      That doesn't seem right to me - they're saying this account had something like 500k followers (which, again, let's assume that's true) you're going to see reporting from WSJ, NYT, WashPo etc. all of whom have millions of follows. Even some basic reporters have way larger followings - for example I don't know who this guy is: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec but he's got 1.5m followers and seems to be very active reporting Maxwell/Epstein details. 500k sounds extremely unlikely to be the largest reporter covering this, and even if it is, it's not that much more than the reputable reports who have 200k+
      - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
        Fallacy of authority
      - runes 5y ago
        Posobiec is an independent citizen journalist (who just happens to be a navy intel officer).
nahqz 5y ago
Ah well, if we have "reputable journalists" on the case then we don't need some lowlife reporting on it.
- nepthar 5y ago
  Welcome to HN! Please check out the guidelines for posting comments, as I believe this one runs afoul of several of them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - theknocker 5y ago
    Shut the fuck up, nerd.
- dang 5y ago
  Would you please roll back the new account creation and guidelines breakage?
slickdork 5y ago
Wow, twitter is really unusable unless you have an account. Can't read threads or look at pictures now. Anyone have a workaround?
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Opening links in new tabs seems to work for me. Or using a new private browsing session.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  On mobile, you need to just refresh when you click through to a thread to be able to read it: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1468604514169196552 https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/14686045141691965...
- psychlops 5y ago
  My workaround is to come here and read what people write about it. No need to visit Twitter at all.
- makeworld 5y ago
  Don't allow Twitter to set cookies, that fixes it completely.
- lvs 5y ago
  Delete cookies
- JeremyNT 5y ago
  In case you aren't already aware, you can use Nitter [0] as an alternate Twitter frontend (you can install an extension to automatically redirect you there, if you prefer). At various times nitter.net may be rate limited, in which case you can look to a list of instances and pick a different one [1]. Here are some direct links to the accounts the parent mentioned, for example: https://nitter.42l.fr/jkbjournalist https://nitter.42l.fr/jkbjournalist and https://nitter.42l.fr/KlasfeldReports https://nitter.42l.fr/KlasfeldReports [0] https://nitter.net/about https://nitter.net/about [1] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter#resources https://github.com/zedeus/nitter#resources
daneel_w 5y ago
So? It's irrelevant that there are others reporting about it.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  If you're interested in the factual details of the case rather than some meta argument about Twitter's bot policy (of which there's not really a point, because we don't know why the account was actually banned aside from artificial manipulation) - I thought it'd be helpful to have a few other sources that are unlikely to be removed.
  - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
    > because we don't know why the account was actually banned aside from artificial manipulation We don't know why the account was actually banned aside from Twitter's evidence-free assertions.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

Are you saying Twitter banned this group because there was already other people reporting on the topic? Is that a standard in the TOS, that “First!” is an actionable internet rule?

MrPatan 5y ago
"reputable", no less.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Well rather than reading anonymous accounts who aggregate what real journalists are reporting from the courtroom while interspersing random conspiracy theories, it seemed useful to just link to the real journalists directly. An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    “real journalists”, hmm, there it is again.
    - MrPatan 5y ago
      I wonder why those real reputable journalists wont get their twitters deleted. Ah! hold on, I know, it's because they are real and reputable. I'm so dumb, sorry.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Real journalists as in they're literally in the courtroom reporting from the trial, and one of them wrote the series of articles that broke the Epstein thing wide open... vs. randos on Twitter just cribbing their reporting while writing "THREAD" at the top. How is it remotely controversial to prefer primary sources.. As much as it annoys the very online, reporting isn't just writing twitter threads with your opinions, it actually takes fact finding effort.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Fair but it’s an appeal to authority and skirts true Scotsman but… never the less on occasion reputable journalists are leveraged to plant narratives on behalf of interested parties because they are reputable, so there is that. It’s not as though very wealthy people were not ensnared by mr Epstein and would love to keep their involvement low key.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      I mean, Julie K. Brown wrote like 30? articles about it, talked to 60+ victims, her reporting lead to Epstein's arrest, Acosta's resignation, Maxwell's trial -- I don't think she's "on the take". https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein https://www.miamiherald.com/topics/jeffrey-epstein Is it an appeal to authority to trust a primary source who is literally in the courtroom every day, instead of a random anonymous Twitter account just cribbing from primary sources?
      - mc32 5y ago
        I grant you she’s doing a good job, but that does not grant her a monopoly on fact. If only accredited journalists are allowed to report then we have no Wikileaks, no citizen journalism etc. Twitter is in the wrong to suppress an account on account of “artificially” inflating engagement. First, they don’t have to present evidence and second What news organ doesn’t create artificial engagement? It’s a preposterous excuse.
        pessimizer 5y ago
        > If only accredited journalists are allowed to report You are not replying to anyone who has suggested this. Anyway, the government licensing of journalists is at least 5 years off.
        fennecfoxen 5y ago
        US government licensing of journalists would be quickly struck down as unconstitutional. It’s not a free press if you need permission.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

By handwaving this away I take it you're ok with Twitter deciding who is "reputable" and a "journalist"? There's no evidence this account violated the Twitter TOS.

jamal-kumar 5y ago
Bruh I'm just happy someone linked someone else at all. These are current events, moving targets... Squabbling in the comments like that is more of a destructive distraction than anything
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  Is it not demonstrative of my point that this person immediately hand waves away twitter banning this account then immediately suggests that you use two blue checkmarks instead?
ineedasername 5y ago
It's possible you're reading too much into that comment. The GP may simply have been providing a PSA about where they have found useful information given that one potential source has been removed. From HN community guidelines on reading into a comment: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
- nahqz 5y ago
  I think the "reputable" word is what gave the commenter away.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Why? They're saying they have people they believe are reputable. Again, reading into that to assume the commenter intended to say the banned account was sending out bad information violates the community guidelines of "plausible interpretation." Is it plausible that the commenter merely meant "Hey, here's some reputable sources"? Seems possible to me. If one store goes out of business and I say "Here are two store that I consider reputable for buying the same things", that really doesn't mean I think the original store was not reputable. The comment does not at all read to me as justification for the ban one way or another. It is a simple statement that there are sources the commenter trusts on the topic, with a referral to them.

bko 5y ago

Great. Why did twitter delete this one?

Traster 5y ago
Doesn't it seem a pretty strong indicator that the claim they got censored for reporting on Maxwell is untrue because more popular, more credible people aren't being suspended. If the goal is to supress news about Maxwell it seems pretty clear that suspending some small anonymous account would not acheive that.
- bko 5y ago
  > more credible people aren't being suspended yes, but this one was the most popular. If they're looking at suppressing news or attention, they'd want to ban the most popular, not the most credible necessarily.
  - Traster 5y ago
    That doesn't seem right to me - they're saying this account had something like 500k followers (which, again, let's assume that's true) you're going to see reporting from WSJ, NYT, WashPo etc. all of whom have millions of follows. Even some basic reporters have way larger followings - for example I don't know who this guy is: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec but he's got 1.5m followers and seems to be very active reporting Maxwell/Epstein details. 500k sounds extremely unlikely to be the largest reporter covering this, and even if it is, it's not that much more than the reputable reports who have 200k+
    - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
      Fallacy of authority
    - runes 5y ago
      Posobiec is an independent citizen journalist (who just happens to be a navy intel officer).

nahqz 5y ago

Ah well, if we have "reputable journalists" on the case then we don't need some lowlife reporting on it.

nepthar 5y ago
Welcome to HN! Please check out the guidelines for posting comments, as I believe this one runs afoul of several of them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- theknocker 5y ago
  Shut the fuck up, nerd.
dang 5y ago
Would you please roll back the new account creation and guidelines breakage?

slickdork 5y ago

Wow, twitter is really unusable unless you have an account. Can't read threads or look at pictures now. Anyone have a workaround?

jcranmer 5y ago
Opening links in new tabs seems to work for me. Or using a new private browsing session.
mikeyouse 5y ago
On mobile, you need to just refresh when you click through to a thread to be able to read it: https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1468604514169196552 https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/14686045141691965...
psychlops 5y ago
My workaround is to come here and read what people write about it. No need to visit Twitter at all.
makeworld 5y ago
Don't allow Twitter to set cookies, that fixes it completely.
lvs 5y ago
Delete cookies
JeremyNT 5y ago
In case you aren't already aware, you can use Nitter [0] as an alternate Twitter frontend (you can install an extension to automatically redirect you there, if you prefer). At various times nitter.net may be rate limited, in which case you can look to a list of instances and pick a different one [1]. Here are some direct links to the accounts the parent mentioned, for example: https://nitter.42l.fr/jkbjournalist https://nitter.42l.fr/jkbjournalist and https://nitter.42l.fr/KlasfeldReports https://nitter.42l.fr/KlasfeldReports [0] https://nitter.net/about https://nitter.net/about [1] https://github.com/zedeus/nitter#resources https://github.com/zedeus/nitter#resources

daneel_w 5y ago

So? It's irrelevant that there are others reporting about it.

mikeyouse 5y ago
If you're interested in the factual details of the case rather than some meta argument about Twitter's bot policy (of which there's not really a point, because we don't know why the account was actually banned aside from artificial manipulation) - I thought it'd be helpful to have a few other sources that are unlikely to be removed.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  > because we don't know why the account was actually banned aside from artificial manipulation We don't know why the account was actually banned aside from Twitter's evidence-free assertions.