3 ms·

It wasn't my intention to litigate this story here. I was simply citing it as an example of the difficulty of identifying misinformation. Also, I think a fair

It wasn't my intention to litigate this story here. I was simply citing it as an example of the difficulty of identifying misinformation. Also, I think a fair discussion of Twitter moderation should include a post-mortem of one of their most famous mistakes, discussing what Twitter did and what should they have done differently, and not so much the story itself. (Of course, the substance is also important, but this isn't the right place for that discussion.)

pstuart 4y ago
That's just it: I don't think it was a mistake (if we're talking "censorship" about the laptop story). The story is radioactive. The veracity of it means nothing -- just the phrase is now a talking point, a campaign slogan. If my points are correct per the prior comment, what good does it serve the people to be amplified in a short attention span economy? Why shine light on dialog that sucks oxygen out of the room? HN is not the place to come to blows over tribal politics, but I think that discussing policies, strategies, and other political hacking is worthy of being explored if there's willingness to examine the impacts that these actions have.
- haberman 4y ago
  Twitter made it impossible to Tweet links to the story. A dialog box showed an error message if you tried to share the link: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-block-ny-post-hunter-biden-article.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo... This is an extraordinary technological measure. Plenty of things posted on Twitter turn out to be false, misleading, or not worth shining light on. This one turned out to be true, and yet earned the most extreme sanction Twitter is capable of: prior restraint on speech.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    What turned out to be true? The findings per the GOP Senate committee: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_johnson_to_us_attorney_weiss_-_hunter_biden_investigation.pdf https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_johns...
    - haberman 4y ago
      Tens of thousands of emails recovered from the laptop turned out to be authentic, including the emails that formed the basis of the NYPost story.
      - pstuart 4y ago
        My original comment in this thread never contested that. There's worthy conjecture of the provenance of same, but that's a different discussion. What was found to be true was that Hunter Biden was open to profiting from his association with his father (among other distasteful things). What has not been found to be true (read the report and tell me otherwise), and that is that Joe Biden himself was corrupt and sold favors. If you cite the "10% for the big guy" quote, you also have to acknowledge that it was ready to be offered, but never shown to be accepted. Don't you find it odd that will all the investigation that happened by his political enemies that Joe Biden was never charged with anything? Do you think that they would pounce on any opportunity to do so? But it's been shown by people such as yourself that actual guilt doesn't matter -- just the accusation is good enough. Also note that I offer no defense to Hunter because what he did was sleazy. I also note that those obsessed with the affaire d'laptop don't care about the corruption of his predecessor and family (specifically his son in law), which was far more vast in scope and in venality. I am against corruption regardless of which party engages in it. Would you say the same is true for you, and if so, demonstrate that in some way?
        haberman 4y ago
        Yes I am against corruption regardless of which party engages in it. Trump is as corrupt as they come, the only way he knows how to run anything is like a mob boss who expects loyalty above all. But we're commenting on a story about moderation of online forums, not corruption of politicians. I don't find the emails especially incriminating, and I honestly find Joe Biden to be a pretty admirable person, not especially corrupt as politicians go. But I will never forget the way that the media and platforms like Twitter used their power to bury a story that turned out to be true. I believe they did so because it was inconvenient to their own personal biases and their investment in seeing Biden elected. I was invested in seeing Biden elected too! But our highest commitment must be to the truth. I have a deep distrust of people who would suppress true facts, especially when so many false or misleading narratives are circulated all the time. As a great example of this, my comment that you replied to is currently rated at -1. It directly answers your question, it is not rude or impolite, and it is unquestionably true. And yet at least two people disliked it enough that they wanted to bury it. I don't know why those two people had that reaction, but that is exactly the behavior that I feel so distrustful of. Contrast the Biden Laptop story with the Steele Dossier. That story was repeated endlessly in the media, with far more numerous and salacious accusations, which turned out to be almost totally discredited. Now I find Trump to be a repugnant figure, but the double standard here is infuriating to me. The truth should matter above all.
pstuart 4y ago
A follow up question (as I was too concerned about defending your original complaint): > what should they have done differently What do you think they should have done differently? And to follow that up, in cases of incontrovertible misinformation, how do you think that should that be handled?

pstuart 4y ago

That's just it: I don't think it was a mistake (if we're talking "censorship" about the laptop story). The story is radioactive. The veracity of it means nothing -- just the phrase is now a talking point, a campaign slogan. If my points are correct per the prior comment, what good does it serve the people to be amplified in a short attention span economy? Why shine light on dialog that sucks oxygen out of the room? HN is not the place to come to blows over tribal politics, but I think that discussing policies, strategies, and other political hacking is worthy of being explored if there's willingness to examine the impacts that these actions have.

haberman 4y ago
Twitter made it impossible to Tweet links to the story. A dialog box showed an error message if you tried to share the link: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-block-ny-post-hunter-biden-article.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo... This is an extraordinary technological measure. Plenty of things posted on Twitter turn out to be false, misleading, or not worth shining light on. This one turned out to be true, and yet earned the most extreme sanction Twitter is capable of: prior restraint on speech.
- pstuart 4y ago
  What turned out to be true? The findings per the GOP Senate committee: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_johnson_to_us_attorney_weiss_-_hunter_biden_investigation.pdf https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_johns...
  - haberman 4y ago
    Tens of thousands of emails recovered from the laptop turned out to be authentic, including the emails that formed the basis of the NYPost story.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      My original comment in this thread never contested that. There's worthy conjecture of the provenance of same, but that's a different discussion. What was found to be true was that Hunter Biden was open to profiting from his association with his father (among other distasteful things). What has not been found to be true (read the report and tell me otherwise), and that is that Joe Biden himself was corrupt and sold favors. If you cite the "10% for the big guy" quote, you also have to acknowledge that it was ready to be offered, but never shown to be accepted. Don't you find it odd that will all the investigation that happened by his political enemies that Joe Biden was never charged with anything? Do you think that they would pounce on any opportunity to do so? But it's been shown by people such as yourself that actual guilt doesn't matter -- just the accusation is good enough. Also note that I offer no defense to Hunter because what he did was sleazy. I also note that those obsessed with the affaire d'laptop don't care about the corruption of his predecessor and family (specifically his son in law), which was far more vast in scope and in venality. I am against corruption regardless of which party engages in it. Would you say the same is true for you, and if so, demonstrate that in some way?
      - haberman 4y ago
        Yes I am against corruption regardless of which party engages in it. Trump is as corrupt as they come, the only way he knows how to run anything is like a mob boss who expects loyalty above all. But we're commenting on a story about moderation of online forums, not corruption of politicians. I don't find the emails especially incriminating, and I honestly find Joe Biden to be a pretty admirable person, not especially corrupt as politicians go. But I will never forget the way that the media and platforms like Twitter used their power to bury a story that turned out to be true. I believe they did so because it was inconvenient to their own personal biases and their investment in seeing Biden elected. I was invested in seeing Biden elected too! But our highest commitment must be to the truth. I have a deep distrust of people who would suppress true facts, especially when so many false or misleading narratives are circulated all the time. As a great example of this, my comment that you replied to is currently rated at -1. It directly answers your question, it is not rude or impolite, and it is unquestionably true. And yet at least two people disliked it enough that they wanted to bury it. I don't know why those two people had that reaction, but that is exactly the behavior that I feel so distrustful of. Contrast the Biden Laptop story with the Steele Dossier. That story was repeated endlessly in the media, with far more numerous and salacious accusations, which turned out to be almost totally discredited. Now I find Trump to be a repugnant figure, but the double standard here is infuriating to me. The truth should matter above all.

pstuart 4y ago

A follow up question (as I was too concerned about defending your original complaint): > what should they have done differently What do you think they should have done differently? And to follow that up, in cases of incontrovertible misinformation, how do you think that should that be handled?