4 ms·

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

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.
hulitu 5y ago
Twiter does this from a long time. Just normal propaganda machine in action.
pixelgeek 5y ago
Twitter didn't suspend the account for not being reputable. They suspended the account for being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content. You're arguing a point that Twitter never made
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content." This is part of the reason why I detest Twitter's leadership. It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. If someone tells me the same dozen or so twitter handles that always manage to chime in at the top of just about every trending social topic are authentic, I simply won't believe them. Why aren't these banned?
  - pixelgeek 5y ago
    > It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. Well I can't disagree with that. It is endemic of Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc. When these companies deal with the sheer volume of users they have they hide behind rules that are judged via algorithm and are not able to be evaluated or appealed unless you get enough attention on social media. It is yet another argument for the elimination of them. If they can't manage themselves then they shouldn't be running.

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.

hulitu 5y ago

Twiter does this from a long time. Just normal propaganda machine in action.

pixelgeek 5y ago

Twitter didn't suspend the account for not being reputable. They suspended the account for being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content. You're arguing a point that Twitter never made

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"being part of a network that was artificially promoting tweets and content." This is part of the reason why I detest Twitter's leadership. It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. If someone tells me the same dozen or so twitter handles that always manage to chime in at the top of just about every trending social topic are authentic, I simply won't believe them. Why aren't these banned?
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  > It's the tyranny of selectively enforcing the rules and hiding behind it. Well I can't disagree with that. It is endemic of Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc. When these companies deal with the sheer volume of users they have they hide behind rules that are judged via algorithm and are not able to be evaluated or appealed unless you get enough attention on social media. It is yet another argument for the elimination of them. If they can't manage themselves then they shouldn't be running.