5 ms·

> Replace "lab leak theory" with whatever topic you think has been unfairly censored, and the reason it was censored (or any other action taken against it) is n

by Meekro 4y ago

> Replace "lab leak theory" with whatever topic you think has been unfairly censored, and the reason it was censored (or any other action taken against it) is not because of the content of that topic, I ABSOLUTELY ASSURE YOU. Pretty sure this is not true. The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored for one reason, and one reason only: it was a bombshell dropped at the 11th hour, and liberals were afraid that it would result in Trump winning re-election. The truth or untruth of the story was beside the point; if it had been Trump Jr's laptop, it would never have been censored. Censorship is not inevitable. If Musk had been in charge of Twitter back then, this story would not have been censored.

bfgoodrich 4y ago
jpgvm 4y ago
It wasn't so much censored as it was boring and irrelevant. If it was driving clicks it wouldn't have been "censored".
- chasd00 4y ago
  > If it was driving clicks it wouldn't have been "censored". You have it backwards, it was driving clicks and the algo was full steam ahead getting more clicks. It had to be manually removed to stop the spread.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    I could "release" a story on how I found an iPad on a bus that shows that Donald Trump Jr. has sex with babies and then posts it on a hidden social media network. I could release it (like Guiliani did with the Hunter Biden story) with no verifiable evidence, just an insistence that this is all true. The story would be false, because I just made that up. I would think it would be pretty remiss of FB or Twitter to allow my invented story to spread given its completely unsubstantiated nature. Now, if at a later date, it turned out that people were able to verify that DTjr did in fact have sex with babies and shared the videos with a private network, it would also be remiss of FB and Twitter to prevent discussion of it. We live in an era where people can release stories with generated audio, video and other visual media to make any invented point they want. The idea that these stories should be able to be spread around freely even in the absence of any actually verified facts is fundamentally absurd. If you were to get that wish, I am absolutely certain that you would hate the world it would create even more than you might the current one.
    - jamesrom 4y ago
      It sounds like you just admitted that it wasn't boring and irrelevant.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Nope.
- Fervicus 4y ago
  Why would a big story like that involving the presidential candidate and his son be boring and irrelevant?
- Meekro 4y ago
  No, it was censored. Twitter prevented anyone from tweeting links to the story, and prevented people from sharing the story via private message.[1] They also banned the @nypost twitter account for posting it and refusing to take it down.[2] Also, in a poll by a reputable pollster, a majority of likely voters called the story "important" or "very important"[3] -- pretty much the opposite of "boring and irrelevant." [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-new-york-post-freeze-policy-reversal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-n... [3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
That must explain why numerous right wing media outlets also chose not to cover it (Fox, WSJ, others). It was not covered at the time because the way it was "released" meant that the claims were unsubstantiated and unsubstaniable. As more information comes out the appears to be actually verifiable (and verified), it is showing up in "completely mainstream media" outlets. There's a problem when you try to release a news story using more or less precisely the same playbook that would be used if the story was fabricated. You can't blame the media for not taking you seriously when you (in this case Guiliani) does more or less precisely what someone who was lying through their teeth and knew it. If you want them to take you seriously, you need to give them the chance to verify your claims. The Hunter Biden Laptop story was bungled as much by its "releasors" as by the media. Also, even today, it's not entirely clear what the big deal actually is, other than being able to say "possible corruption" and "Joe Biden" in the same sentence.
- prepend 4y ago
  > It was not covered at the time because the way it was "released" meant that the claims were unsubstantiated and unsubstaniable. No, I don’t think so. There are billions of unsubstantiated and unsustainable messages on Twitter. I think this one was censored because of the political impact. It seems weird to argue otherwise.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    There are 3 primary alternatives: 1. ban any and all messages that contain unsubstantiated and unverifiable contents 2. ban such messages that may have an outsize impact on society if they are false 3. allow all messages and just deal with the consequences post-facto The first one is operationally impossible. The last one might seem OK if you're a free speech absolutist, but the cost/benefit analysis doesn't come out well in most people's opinions (that is, the downsides of allowing every invented story designed to distort an election are larger than the benefits of completely uncontrolled use of a private messaging platform). Which leaves #2, ie. precisely what Twitter did.
    - 4y ago

by Meekro 4y ago

bfgoodrich 4y ago

jpgvm 4y ago

It wasn't so much censored as it was boring and irrelevant. If it was driving clicks it wouldn't have been "censored".

chasd00 4y ago
> If it was driving clicks it wouldn't have been "censored". You have it backwards, it was driving clicks and the algo was full steam ahead getting more clicks. It had to be manually removed to stop the spread.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  I could "release" a story on how I found an iPad on a bus that shows that Donald Trump Jr. has sex with babies and then posts it on a hidden social media network. I could release it (like Guiliani did with the Hunter Biden story) with no verifiable evidence, just an insistence that this is all true. The story would be false, because I just made that up. I would think it would be pretty remiss of FB or Twitter to allow my invented story to spread given its completely unsubstantiated nature. Now, if at a later date, it turned out that people were able to verify that DTjr did in fact have sex with babies and shared the videos with a private network, it would also be remiss of FB and Twitter to prevent discussion of it. We live in an era where people can release stories with generated audio, video and other visual media to make any invented point they want. The idea that these stories should be able to be spread around freely even in the absence of any actually verified facts is fundamentally absurd. If you were to get that wish, I am absolutely certain that you would hate the world it would create even more than you might the current one.
  - jamesrom 4y ago
    It sounds like you just admitted that it wasn't boring and irrelevant.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Nope.
Fervicus 4y ago
Why would a big story like that involving the presidential candidate and his son be boring and irrelevant?
Meekro 4y ago
No, it was censored. Twitter prevented anyone from tweeting links to the story, and prevented people from sharing the story via private message.[1] They also banned the @nypost twitter account for posting it and refusing to take it down.[2] Also, in a poll by a reputable pollster, a majority of likely voters called the story "important" or "very important"[3] -- pretty much the opposite of "boring and irrelevant." [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-new-york-post-freeze-policy-reversal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/twitter-n... [3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

That must explain why numerous right wing media outlets also chose not to cover it (Fox, WSJ, others). It was not covered at the time because the way it was "released" meant that the claims were unsubstantiated and unsubstaniable. As more information comes out the appears to be actually verifiable (and verified), it is showing up in "completely mainstream media" outlets. There's a problem when you try to release a news story using more or less precisely the same playbook that would be used if the story was fabricated. You can't blame the media for not taking you seriously when you (in this case Guiliani) does more or less precisely what someone who was lying through their teeth and knew it. If you want them to take you seriously, you need to give them the chance to verify your claims. The Hunter Biden Laptop story was bungled as much by its "releasors" as by the media. Also, even today, it's not entirely clear what the big deal actually is, other than being able to say "possible corruption" and "Joe Biden" in the same sentence.

prepend 4y ago
> It was not covered at the time because the way it was "released" meant that the claims were unsubstantiated and unsubstaniable. No, I don’t think so. There are billions of unsubstantiated and unsustainable messages on Twitter. I think this one was censored because of the political impact. It seems weird to argue otherwise.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  There are 3 primary alternatives: 1. ban any and all messages that contain unsubstantiated and unverifiable contents 2. ban such messages that may have an outsize impact on society if they are false 3. allow all messages and just deal with the consequences post-facto The first one is operationally impossible. The last one might seem OK if you're a free speech absolutist, but the cost/benefit analysis doesn't come out well in most people's opinions (that is, the downsides of allowing every invented story designed to distort an election are larger than the benefits of completely uncontrolled use of a private messaging platform). Which leaves #2, ie. precisely what Twitter did.
  - 4y ago