3 ms·

Seems important that there would be some sort of reform when there has been no mea culpa whatsoever by the perpetrators. Quietly issuing a reversal 6 months aft

Seems important that there would be some sort of reform when there has been no mea culpa whatsoever by the perpetrators. Quietly issuing a reversal 6 months after the election does not count. Maybe I'm just not aware, but was there an official change in policy after this debacle? I assume it remained business as usual at Twitter until about a week ago.

ethanbond 4y ago
What would have been an appropriate mea culpa in your view?
- perfecthjrjth 4y ago
  Name and shame, and fire them. That's the best approach in these kind of issues.
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    "Naming and shaming" and firing people for something that we now all agree didn't happen? The claim was that articles about Hunter Biden's laptop were disallowed from Twitter until 6 months after the election. This is false.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    What on earth? “The best approach” is to throw your employees under the bus and personally shame them in public on a matter that could very legitimately put themselves and their families at risk? Get real.
mtmail 4y ago
> but was there an official change in policy after this debacle Yes, they changed their https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi... according to https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked-materials-policy-in-wake-of-new-york-post-controversy/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked...
- chitowneats 4y ago
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    The explanation is in the article. Twitter's policy changes around hacked materials didn't apply retroactively, so it didn't affect the suspension of the New York Post's account, which occurred because of violations of the hacked materials policy that happened before the change.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      That particular explanation is awful. Changes newly allowing things should almost always be retroactive.

ethanbond 4y ago

What would have been an appropriate mea culpa in your view?

perfecthjrjth 4y ago
Name and shame, and fire them. That's the best approach in these kind of issues.
- pcwalton 4y ago
  "Naming and shaming" and firing people for something that we now all agree didn't happen? The claim was that articles about Hunter Biden's laptop were disallowed from Twitter until 6 months after the election. This is false.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  What on earth? “The best approach” is to throw your employees under the bus and personally shame them in public on a matter that could very legitimately put themselves and their families at risk? Get real.

mtmail 4y ago

> but was there an official change in policy after this debacle Yes, they changed their https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materi... according to https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked-materials-policy-in-wake-of-new-york-post-controversy/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/16/twitter-changes-its-hacked...

chitowneats 4y ago
- pcwalton 4y ago
  The explanation is in the article. Twitter's policy changes around hacked materials didn't apply retroactively, so it didn't affect the suspension of the New York Post's account, which occurred because of violations of the hacked materials policy that happened before the change.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    That particular explanation is awful. Changes newly allowing things should almost always be retroactive.