4 ms·

Yeah, these people are just desperately trying to generate outrage over nothing. It’s really really dumb. No need to give them too much thought

asynchronous 4y ago
[flagged]
- froggertoaster 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - TylerLives 4y ago
    It's a display of power. "Yeah, we're censoring you, so what? Everyone knew this already, and it's a good thing". I'm not sure what the people who decided to publish this were expecting. Who knows though, maybe in the long run it will have some consequences.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  What is good summary that point to the core of the issue as revealed by these “leaks”?
- cyberphobe 4y ago
  What am I missing then?
- lawn 4y ago
  Maybe instead of just repeating that we should re-read them, you should point out exactly what is so aggrevating, and where in the files you're referring to? Simply repeating things is a propaganda and brainwashing technique.
  - epivosism 4y ago
    jumping in here, but what makes me worried is a strong power being used without proper controls, auditing, and system design. From a system perspective it looks like the US Gov had elevated access to ban people, and had opportunity and reason to misuse it. The initial rationale for the US Gov already admits this as a legit reason to ban foreign agents - "undue power/misleading influence". I hold that same view, but also consider that malicious elements in the US Government are also something to worry about, so I'd like their own power to shape the discussion to be limited and tracked, too.
    - Jarwain 4y ago
      It really doesn't look like the US Gov had unilateral access to ban people. Just to flag accounts for consideration by Twitter, differing from what normal users can do only in that the flag comes from a "trusted" source and moderation is expedited. If a tweet didn't violate Twitter's terms, it's been shown the Twitter team wouldn't remove that tweet despite being flagged by the govt
    - lawn 4y ago
      If you read the files, it does not say that the US Gov can just ban people. What they did is flag people, and then Twitter reviews the requests. I'm much more worried about the current state of affairs where a single deranged person (Elon) can arbitrarily issue bans on a whim.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- runjake 4y ago
  Please enlighten us. I have no agenda or allegiances. I tried reading them closely. I see some new stuff that is of mild concern given our post-Snowden world, but I am also not able to see the great outrage.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  You are acting contrarian with no evidence, no discussion of any particular component of the revealed data, nothing specific even to debate regarding the original comment. Yet the conspiracy is the downplaying of it! I've seen a lot of hyperbole about the twitter files that, when I read it for myself, is not nearly what was claimed by the hyperbolist. For example, someone said "The FBI bribed Twitter with $3.4M to remove content!" - I looked into it, and the FBI compensated Twitter for work done over time to research and then take action on suspicious accounts. Now, that may be shady to work with the FBI on takedowns without a warrant or court order. But do I call that a bribe? Not really. I am open to discussing what is wrong and suspicious in the files, but there is quite a correlation between "people raising hell about the Twitter files" and "people who have no problem with hate speech or adversary nation-state propaganda on social networks". For example, I believe that actions taken by social networks (or any organization ever) on behalf of the government should be documented and released to the public after some period of time, even on the order of years. If the government believes a twitter account, facebook account or email address is a threat to national security, it should be documented. If the account is not a singular "threat" but is known to the IC to be a nation-state troll, that should be documented as the reason. I'm not convinced it should happen over email. That said, I acknowledge that nation-state trolling and disinformation campaigns absolutely exist on Twitter and elsewhere, and need dealt with.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Banning DMs talking about true events seems like something reasonable to be outraged about.
- acdha 4y ago
  It happened for a few hours when the story was flagged as hacked materials (just like they’d do for, say, someone’s non-consensual nudes). Twitter did that on their own and removed it shortly later after their internal discussion agreed that it wasn’t a violation (they took down the tweets reposting actual nudes, not the media coverage).
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Sorry, wasn’t NY Post suspended on Twitter for almost two weeks? The impact wasn’t just for a few hours and the final acknowledgement of validity of those files came long after the election. This is textbook gaslighting.0
    - acdha 4y ago
      I was referring specifically to the URL block we were talking about. They used their existing system for hacked material until confirming that it was not appropriate: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-yo...
    - asynchronous 4y ago
      I feel like the memory of democracy nowadays is exactly 18 hours long.
- counttheforks 4y ago
  HN bans any and all DMs. Outraged yet?

asynchronous 4y ago

[flagged]

froggertoaster 4y ago
[flagged]
- TylerLives 4y ago
  It's a display of power. "Yeah, we're censoring you, so what? Everyone knew this already, and it's a good thing". I'm not sure what the people who decided to publish this were expecting. Who knows though, maybe in the long run it will have some consequences.
andsoitis 4y ago
What is good summary that point to the core of the issue as revealed by these “leaks”?
cyberphobe 4y ago
What am I missing then?
lawn 4y ago
Maybe instead of just repeating that we should re-read them, you should point out exactly what is so aggrevating, and where in the files you're referring to? Simply repeating things is a propaganda and brainwashing technique.
- epivosism 4y ago
  jumping in here, but what makes me worried is a strong power being used without proper controls, auditing, and system design. From a system perspective it looks like the US Gov had elevated access to ban people, and had opportunity and reason to misuse it. The initial rationale for the US Gov already admits this as a legit reason to ban foreign agents - "undue power/misleading influence". I hold that same view, but also consider that malicious elements in the US Government are also something to worry about, so I'd like their own power to shape the discussion to be limited and tracked, too.
  - Jarwain 4y ago
    It really doesn't look like the US Gov had unilateral access to ban people. Just to flag accounts for consideration by Twitter, differing from what normal users can do only in that the flag comes from a "trusted" source and moderation is expedited. If a tweet didn't violate Twitter's terms, it's been shown the Twitter team wouldn't remove that tweet despite being flagged by the govt
  - lawn 4y ago
    If you read the files, it does not say that the US Gov can just ban people. What they did is flag people, and then Twitter reviews the requests. I'm much more worried about the current state of affairs where a single deranged person (Elon) can arbitrarily issue bans on a whim.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
runjake 4y ago
Please enlighten us. I have no agenda or allegiances. I tried reading them closely. I see some new stuff that is of mild concern given our post-Snowden world, but I am also not able to see the great outrage.
unethical_ban 4y ago
You are acting contrarian with no evidence, no discussion of any particular component of the revealed data, nothing specific even to debate regarding the original comment. Yet the conspiracy is the downplaying of it! I've seen a lot of hyperbole about the twitter files that, when I read it for myself, is not nearly what was claimed by the hyperbolist. For example, someone said "The FBI bribed Twitter with $3.4M to remove content!" - I looked into it, and the FBI compensated Twitter for work done over time to research and then take action on suspicious accounts. Now, that may be shady to work with the FBI on takedowns without a warrant or court order. But do I call that a bribe? Not really. I am open to discussing what is wrong and suspicious in the files, but there is quite a correlation between "people raising hell about the Twitter files" and "people who have no problem with hate speech or adversary nation-state propaganda on social networks". For example, I believe that actions taken by social networks (or any organization ever) on behalf of the government should be documented and released to the public after some period of time, even on the order of years. If the government believes a twitter account, facebook account or email address is a threat to national security, it should be documented. If the account is not a singular "threat" but is known to the IC to be a nation-state troll, that should be documented as the reason. I'm not convinced it should happen over email. That said, I acknowledge that nation-state trolling and disinformation campaigns absolutely exist on Twitter and elsewhere, and need dealt with.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Banning DMs talking about true events seems like something reasonable to be outraged about.

acdha 4y ago
It happened for a few hours when the story was flagged as hacked materials (just like they’d do for, say, someone’s non-consensual nudes). Twitter did that on their own and removed it shortly later after their internal discussion agreed that it wasn’t a violation (they took down the tweets reposting actual nudes, not the media coverage).
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Sorry, wasn’t NY Post suspended on Twitter for almost two weeks? The impact wasn’t just for a few hours and the final acknowledgement of validity of those files came long after the election. This is textbook gaslighting.0
  - acdha 4y ago
    I was referring specifically to the URL block we were talking about. They used their existing system for hacked material until confirming that it was not appropriate: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-yo...
  - asynchronous 4y ago
    I feel like the memory of democracy nowadays is exactly 18 hours long.
counttheforks 4y ago
HN bans any and all DMs. Outraged yet?