3 ms·

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

by jpgvm 5y ago

chasd00 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    It sounds like you just admitted that it wasn't boring and irrelevant.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Nope.
Fervicus 5y ago
Why would a big story like that involving the presidential candidate and his son be boring and irrelevant?
Meekro 5y 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...

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

by jpgvm 5y ago

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

> 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 5y 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 5y ago
  It sounds like you just admitted that it wasn't boring and irrelevant.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Nope.

Fervicus 5y ago

Why would a big story like that involving the presidential candidate and his son be boring and irrelevant?

Meekro 5y 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...