4 ms·

Ask HN: Why is the Twitter Files buried on HN?

• ffsoftboiled 4y ago
  Because it was a request for removal. It's not unusual for major political powers or companies to ask for something to be removed from a social media site. Both parties did it (as indicated by the files themselves). It wasn't handled well, but few things in life are. If you don't think big tech and political parties collude than are you against political donations? Because it's the same - tit for tat when capital is involved.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• sbate1987 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• Festro 4y ago
  1) The laptop scandal is old news 2) It's not buried, nobody cares about minor updates to old news 3) Freedom of Speech is a US concept, this is a global site 4) Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to private companies like you think it does 5) No collusion was shown to exist beyond the official channels that both top parties in the USA used at times - the twitter thread literally states this very clearly 6) We're talking about dick pics and hookers here, from someone who isn't a politician. It's like saying Tom Hanks is unsuitable as an actor because of Chet Hanks' latest antics. Grow up.
  • aww_dang 4y ago
    > Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to private companies like you think it does The problem here is going to be the private company censoring users at the behest of the state. There may be arguments made as to why some feel that is acceptable, but the distinction is important. This is not the same as a private company invoking freedom of association via content standards.
    • MrMan 4y ago
      it wasnt at the behest of any state what are you talking about
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • aww_dang 4y ago
        https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before-censoring-the-post/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-b... >"MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I would say first, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that we’re in regular touch with social media platforms — just like we’re in regular touch with all of you and your media outlets — about areas where we have concern, information that might be useful, information that may or may not be interesting to your viewers. You all make decisions, just like the social media platforms make decisions, even though they’re a private-sector company and different, but just as an example. So we are ma- — regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans seeing — are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/#:~:text=MS.%20PSAKI%3A%C2%A0%20Sure.%C2%A0%20Well,social%20media%20platform%20policies.%C2%A0 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202... >These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies. >The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020 https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ca-big-tech-biden-censorship-judicial-watch https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ca-big-tech-biden-cen...
  • raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I am not interested in the laptop story, but I am very interested in political parties having contacts on social media sites to promote or hide content. This isn't trivial fact at all. People suspect this to be the case in the media too and hence have very low trust. As they of course should! Your explanation of freedom of speech is very insufficient, even for non-US standards. Of course a company can do what it wants for that matter in a legal sense. You are not concerned that the two parties in your country have influence on the topics shared on social media? To me this is the most essential part here. Yes, pundits made it about the laptop story. They are not the brightest star in the sky and will never amount to much. If you don't understand why such a story is not important in the grand scheme of things, there is little hope for you ever grasping anything complex. I doubt the republican media needs any more criticism here. But this wasn't restricted to them. For the laptop story specifically there is even reason to censor it in my opinion. Why should people be interested here in the first place? Even the family of a president deserves privacy. Still there was collusion between officials and Twitter and you should expect this to be the case for most media publications aside from a handful with more integrity.
    • Festro 4y ago
      Political parties do no have contacts at social media sites to promote or hide content. The White House has contacts to discuss content that relates to national security. Suspect? It's public fact. And of course that should erode trust. No citizen should trust their government 100%. That's just sensible. But have they overstepped any sensible line here? Not that I can see, not that most people can see. General consensus is that this is a nothing burger. My country? Nope. This is media theatre from another country. Of course governments should have influence on topics shared on social media. Child pornography is one topic they should have influence over for starters. Hacked materials. Revenge porn. Those last 2 are the ones that are important here specifically. Not that the White House actually made any kind of request to influence Hunter's hacked dick pics on Twitter - Twitter did this all by themselves, fearing legal repercussions. No government body, or political party, ovestepped any line - AND your entire premise is terrible. Of course government should influence these topics. Good you think privacy is important. There was no collusion. The Twitter officials literally say this in their thread. Twitter made the decision by themselves.
  • ggeorgovassilis 4y ago
    It's not that easy. Social media platforms have a special status under USA law [1] - they get immunity from consequences of their user's behaviour but have to implement platform neutrality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
    • krapp 4y ago
      >they get immunity from consequences of their user's behaviour but have to implement platform neutrality. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
• orzig 4y ago
  Evidence for the claim? Here’s some counter-evidence: I just did an HN search and found this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556 Seems like it got plenty of attention. If you think a different take on the issue deserves attention, try submitting it. Plenty of stories randomly fail to get traction (there are several analyses of this) so you would really need to show a significant sample size of these stories getting zero traction before you could imply they are being purposefully buried.
• theduder99 4y ago
  I was just about to make the same post you did. Shadow banning and algorithmic trends manipulation was often treated as a conspiracy theory and yet today when we have screenshots of twitter's VF tools, it's treated like a nothing burger or buried.
  • tatrajim 4y ago
    Good point. Is it now the received wisdom of HN readers that these are legitimate tools of big-tech and that we should merely yawn at confirmation they were employed at scale to manage narratives deemed inappropriate? Then why lie about using them when testifying in front of Congress? Surely it's a matter-of-fact use of legal methods to silence those with whom one disagrees?
  • ghould 4y ago
    "It didn't happen, but it's a good thing that it did."
• aww_dang 4y ago
  HN is an apolitical site. Anything resting upon premises which contradict HN's political norms is therefore 'political'. Flamewars usually ensue. Therefore, before discussing a topic, be sure that the political premises are agreeable to the status quo. This scandal does not pass the above test.
• h2odragon 4y ago
  People who have concluded that "there's no wrong doing there" do NOT want to see evidence to the contrary. Imagine if Trump asked Twitter to remove discussions about a "pee tape." The request alone would have been months of major media miasma, had it been granted they'd have called for bloodshed.
  • papito 4y ago
    Project much?
• newaccount2021 4y ago
• PaulHoule 4y ago
  How many articles about Twitter have you seen make the front page in the last month? Even when the /newest page was flooded with them and people were writing posts like "Tell HN: We're sick and tired of hearing about Twitter" almost nothing was making the front page and I am pretty sure it was being suppressed. I see woke/anti-woke and trans/anti-trans articles sometimes get quite a few votes on newest and even break through to the front page but they rarely last long. The whole point of HN is it is doesn't traffic in outrage. I might post something about political science but I won't post anything about politics. Once in a while you can stoke some outrage about how Google killed your favorite product or how you got bullied in elementary school but it is not like Twitter which is filled with pithy slogans and people complaining that they are being censored when all they are trying to do is assert their membership in a tribe. (Somebody should start a site called "me too" where there is no censorship because you can assert your membership in your tribe by clicking the "me too" button. What's valuable about speech, priceless even, is people having the opportunity to really think about something and say something original. If people are "free" to spout nonsense through a megaphone there's not a lot of value in that.) Anyway when I hear people complain about censorship I can't help but think about this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryTypo2qeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryTypo2qeU
  • aww_dang 4y ago
    YouTube: Video unavailable This video is not available
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• pcdoodle 4y ago
  HN is as guilty as twitter IMO.
• krapp 4y ago
  >The Twitter files is one of the biggest recent Silicon Valley scandals, demonstrating collusion between a major political party and a major tech company to suppress The Freedom of Speech. It isn't, and it doesn't, and the breathless hyperbole with which you describe it illustrates why it needs to be buried. "The Twitter Files" is clearly just this year's "Hunter Biden's Laptop" which was that year's "DNC Leaks prove treason" which was that year's Pizzagate. There's nothing of intellectual or technical interest here, it's just the American right throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks. It's no coincidence this story "broke" so soon after a certain orange bad man announced his candidacy.
  • the_only_law 4y ago
    > so soon after a certain orange bad man announced his candidacy. I thought they were over him after the brilliant constitution comments.
• tailspin2019 4y ago
  Slightly related to the question but I've been curious why a lot of Twitter related posts are being flagged (like OP's Ask HN currently is at the time of posting). There's obviously been a lot of news - everyone is probably sick to death of it, but this is a site where people express their interest based on voting. HN readers can just not vote on Twitter stuff if it's no longer interesting. Flagging, on the other hand, doesn't feel like the correct approach... If people disagree with the Ask HN question here (and I can see why as it's possibly a bit hyperbolic) I think the correct action is to either ignore it, or provide comments with counterarguments. To me, flagging this seems to lend credence to the point OP is actually trying to make (regardless of whether you agree with the way the point is being made...)
• dang 4y ago
  It isn't. Why did you think it was? The Twitter Files - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556 - Dec 2022 (1544 comments) The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33915734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33915734 - Dec 2022 (412 comments)
• Dudelander 4y ago
  Mainly because most people here don't care. This is a professional tech community, and we view news from that lens. Because of this, what looks like a scandal to you is not surprising to us at all. Your idea of "The Freedom of Speech" just doesn't resonate with us. Anyone's who's worked at a social media company knows that if you don't aggressively moderate your content you end up with OnlyFans. Platform creators need broad moderation authority to do their jobs. The idea that Twitter and other sites are "the digital public square" is the unfortunate result of CEOs overselling their businesses. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, etc are entertainment media first and foremost. They are not a suitable replacement for educational or public institutions, and people need to stop treating them as such.