5 ms·

Can you name one public Twitter ideology except a commitment to not spread vaccine misinformation? At this point if anyone thinks that vaccine debate is ideolo

Can you name one public Twitter ideology except a commitment to not spread vaccine misinformation? At this point if anyone thinks that vaccine debate is ideological, I don't think we will change each others mind in either way, but I'm just curious if there are any examples. As far as I can tell that is the one and only piece of controversy. They banned Trump.

indy 5y ago
They prevented spreading the story of Hunter Biden's laptop just before the last American election [Edit: it's strange to be downvoted for a factually correct statement.]
- nullc 5y ago
  The thread I created on validating the legitimacy of one of those emails using DKIM back when the story broke was quickly flagged. Be glad all you got was a downvote.
  - astrange 5y ago
    That means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened. They're free to delete any emails they like, or even add some as long as you don't check every single one.
    - nullc 5y ago
      > means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened I've never seen this suggested, certainly not in any official communication by the relevant parties. It would be a weird evidentiary standard to construct highly complex, even far out defenses, for someone accused of dubious conduct that must be defeated when they won't even put their own credibility on the line in arguing them themselves. > They're free to delete any emails they like Absolutely, but that doesn't do anything to answer validated emails which are concerning on their own, in isolation.
      - astrange 5y ago
        Why release a statement about what's either an intelligence op (if it's a hack) or a CFAA violation (as reading someone's email on their laptop probably is)? And you can't say finding someone's abandoned laptop is just finders keepers, everything on earth is a CFAA violation. It's nice and open ended like that. Note before it was "found" there was already a pseudonymous report written about some of its contents. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... …and a related party stole Ashley Biden's diary and published it with another fake backstory a bit later. But they've actually been indicted.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Where did you get this weird story?
temp8964 5y ago
Really? Only one? How about they banned New York Post because of the Hunter Biden story?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  they had a pre-existing rule against posting hacked information.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    But it wasn't hacked, he brought the laptop in for data recovery and never returned. After a period of time, that property becomes the property of the shop. The laptop was also seized by the FBI. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Speaking of misinformation...
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    That did not seem to apply for the ottawa trucker rally donor data.
  - nullc 5y ago
    Which is why they shut down the NY Times for posting trumps tax information. ... and why, after hunter biden, they shut down ProPublica after they obtained the detailed tax records of all Americans and started publishing documents from a multitude of wealthy people, none of which (thus far) have exposed any crimes, and little of which could be argued to be a matter of public interest... oh wait they didn't. In these examples not only was the material hacked, its further disclosure is a crime. By comparison, the disclosure of the hunter biden material was completely lawful, as far as we're able to tell right now. The material was also easily verified to be legitimate, at least in part-- since the google DKIM on the messages passed. You won't find pretty much any other hacked material reporting that twitter allowed to spread that could be cryptographic authenticated. It's why twitter shut down accounts sharing the dump of Epik (right wing wingnut friendly domain registrar), or personal information extracted from it... oh wait, they didn't (well they didn't shut down a few accounts calling for violence against people in it, just not one merely propagating the hacked information). It's why they shut down Suddeutsche Zeitung when they published their reporting on the Panama Papers... oh right, yet again. They didn't. I could keep going, -- there is a lot of journalism that comes from hacked documents. Can you give a single prior example of high profile reporting on hacked materials where twitter suppressed the media outlet and discussion of the subject? -- I'm earnestly interested.
zackees 5y ago
vmception 5y ago
Its just the San Francisco “silence is violence” crowd. The “use your platform” crowd. They are not objective even if you coincidentally like the cause of the day. If you try to express a dissenting opinion at that organization, even as an attempt to refine that opinion, you get kicked out. You made someone uncomfortable. Taking a spiked metal baseball bat to that beehive is the way to deal with it. Whether it will be better? Unlikely, just different

indy 5y ago

They prevented spreading the story of Hunter Biden's laptop just before the last American election [Edit: it's strange to be downvoted for a factually correct statement.]

nullc 5y ago
The thread I created on validating the legitimacy of one of those emails using DKIM back when the story broke was quickly flagged. Be glad all you got was a downvote.
- astrange 5y ago
  That means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened. They're free to delete any emails they like, or even add some as long as you don't check every single one.
  - nullc 5y ago
    > means nothing except his email account was hacked and put on a random laptop, which is what happened I've never seen this suggested, certainly not in any official communication by the relevant parties. It would be a weird evidentiary standard to construct highly complex, even far out defenses, for someone accused of dubious conduct that must be defeated when they won't even put their own credibility on the line in arguing them themselves. > They're free to delete any emails they like Absolutely, but that doesn't do anything to answer validated emails which are concerning on their own, in isolation.
    - astrange 5y ago
      Why release a statement about what's either an intelligence op (if it's a hack) or a CFAA violation (as reading someone's email on their laptop probably is)? And you can't say finding someone's abandoned laptop is just finders keepers, everything on earth is a CFAA violation. It's nice and open ended like that. Note before it was "found" there was already a pseudonymous report written about some of its contents. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-... …and a related party stole Ashley Biden's diary and published it with another fake backstory a bit later. But they've actually been indicted.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Where did you get this weird story?

temp8964 5y ago

Really? Only one? How about they banned New York Post because of the Hunter Biden story?

beaconstudios 5y ago
they had a pre-existing rule against posting hacked information.
- Clubber 5y ago
  But it wasn't hacked, he brought the laptop in for data recovery and never returned. After a period of time, that property becomes the property of the shop. The laptop was also seized by the FBI. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
- the_doctah 5y ago
  Speaking of misinformation...
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  That did not seem to apply for the ottawa trucker rally donor data.
- nullc 5y ago
  Which is why they shut down the NY Times for posting trumps tax information. ... and why, after hunter biden, they shut down ProPublica after they obtained the detailed tax records of all Americans and started publishing documents from a multitude of wealthy people, none of which (thus far) have exposed any crimes, and little of which could be argued to be a matter of public interest... oh wait they didn't. In these examples not only was the material hacked, its further disclosure is a crime. By comparison, the disclosure of the hunter biden material was completely lawful, as far as we're able to tell right now. The material was also easily verified to be legitimate, at least in part-- since the google DKIM on the messages passed. You won't find pretty much any other hacked material reporting that twitter allowed to spread that could be cryptographic authenticated. It's why twitter shut down accounts sharing the dump of Epik (right wing wingnut friendly domain registrar), or personal information extracted from it... oh wait, they didn't (well they didn't shut down a few accounts calling for violence against people in it, just not one merely propagating the hacked information). It's why they shut down Suddeutsche Zeitung when they published their reporting on the Panama Papers... oh right, yet again. They didn't. I could keep going, -- there is a lot of journalism that comes from hacked documents. Can you give a single prior example of high profile reporting on hacked materials where twitter suppressed the media outlet and discussion of the subject? -- I'm earnestly interested.

zackees 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

Its just the San Francisco “silence is violence” crowd. The “use your platform” crowd. They are not objective even if you coincidentally like the cause of the day. If you try to express a dissenting opinion at that organization, even as an attempt to refine that opinion, you get kicked out. You made someone uncomfortable. Taking a spiked metal baseball bat to that beehive is the way to deal with it. Whether it will be better? Unlikely, just different