This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason.
There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging the link to each other, and blocking people who share screenshots, and not invite serious scrutiny or action.
The legislative blowback is going to suck. Section 230 is an ordinary law, not a constitutional right or based on one, and that means it's exposed to all the usual political fighting.
I agree they blundered here. They don't want to be hijacked by another "leaks" story days before the election but now the suppression of this has become the entire story, and its convinced a lot of people the story is true and dangerous to Biden. Even if the email is true I don't see how its dangerous and if the only media carrying the story are the NY Post and Fox it doesn't hurt Biden.
Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will.
The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.
Companies which spend millions on counsel every year are not going to blunder. They either have anterior motives (boost the story through censorship) or they had no choice.
I don’t know what to think anymore because I don’t understand how this censorship will have any effect other than causing the story to spread like fire.
I would not characterize this story as speech but as carefully designed viral marketing content. If one is in the business of attracting people speaking with each other and selling that access to companies and political parties then dealing with viral content intended to undermine your sales is a continuous struggle. This one was deemed over the line and a case of potentially Russian disinformation laundering.
When looking at the legalities keep in mind that these companies have been explicitly warned by the F.B.I. of such possibilities and have spent time combing through their own databases and have identified such events.
Didn't Twitter and Google already stated they want regulation? They are one of the few companies that actually can facilitate any form of large scale content scanning. Such mechanisms take years to develop if you even get the critical data needed.
> it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason
The GOP is prioritizing § 230 reform. Given their likely fall from power and prioritization of the SCOTUS confirmation, as well as Democrat control of the House and its focus on stimulus bills, the short-term threat is minute.
From an amoral government relations perspective, heavier moderation makes sense. A Biden spoof going viral during the election would attract the attention of incoming Democrat legislators. That creates a medium-term threat where there isn't one.
That said, I'm surprised they chose to block the content over de-prioritise it algorithmically and flag it with a warning.
I have figured it out why this move was done despite being stupidly obvious. It is done to provide cover for the next thing Section 230 repealed. Section 230 provides immunity for website publishers from third party content. By repealing section 230, big social media tech gets an even larger monopoly but that's not the reason why this happened. There are lot of people on these social media platforms who are behind the scenes worker type of people. They know how things work and run their mouth freely. Somebody predicted Kamala Harris as VP 1 and 1/2 years out. The politicians can't risk losing control.
I dont understand the shock.Just 4 years a staffer suspended Donald Trumps account and was considered a hero.
So it is not at all surprising that twitter does this sort of policing.
If you violate rules, you will be banned. They were found to be violating rules, but were treated leniently compared to lower profile users who distribute illegal materials.
This is not new. You will be censored or banned on Hacker News for not following rules. You will not see the distribution of the NY Post's material on this site.
I applaud them for enforcing rules, but not for being lenient with these actors. Free Speech has limits especially in someone elses' house, you should all know this.
Furthermore Reform Section 230 is political crap going nowhere. Any invokation of that here is political nonsense.
There won't be legislative blow back, the GOP is days away from being wholesale evicted from controlling anything at all in DC.
As a legislative move, this is changing their bet to the horse that's about to win. The social media companies are clearly more afraid longterm of what happens if they let this kind of stunt spread than they are afraid of the lame duck.
Robert Graham [1] pointed out that if the emails are authentic, they can be trivially verified via DKIM.
That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics.
Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility.
It wouldn’t prove they were authentic. It would just prove they were sent through gmail’s servers. If you trusted gmail then it would prove the username, time and content was legitimate.
All it looks like to me is some Russian username. I don’t see how it ties to a real person. I haven’t read the article so maybe the post explains that bit.
Wouldn't DKIM verification require having the public key of Gmail from 2014 on hand? I looked up some old 2014 era emails I got from gmail and it looks like they were using the "20120113" selector at the time, which is no longer available through DNS query.
it's honestly irrelevant about the credibility of the emails and other data at this point, its the blanket censorship of this article that's now the real story.
Absolutely this can be trivially verified and needs to be. Release the emails if they're real so they can be verified. But also, isn't it the same thing with Trump's tax returns? All I've found so far is that the New York Times obtained copies, but they haven't actually released them to the public to be verified. If anyone can find the actual copies I'd like to see.
We need to take all of the press releases about "leaks" with a grain of salt, because I keep seeing "leaks" without actual content or verification. It's bullshit and why places that provide the actual contents of leaks are so important. Yes, certain publications are more trustworthy than others historically, but that doesn't mean they get an indefinite pass on providing verified information.
Crux of the issue is that everyone knows there’s a double standard. Why do they co-ordinate to block this story and not the countless other “unverified” scoops? Because it threatens a protected politician.
Whatever your perspective, directly verifiable censorship like this is just begging for legal trouble and monopoly investigations. Tactically speaking, I would say this is a massive mistake from Twitter.
I think it is crazy that twitter has gone down this path. Being the arbiter of truth makes their job much harder and doesn’t seem to have a big upside. If they have an agenda they want to push the upside might be there but otherwise it’s just a perpetual shitshow.
There's a recurring argument on social media censorship that goes: "you wouldn't want the telephone company censoring phone conversations would you?" And the response is along the lines: "these are hardly private conversations, any tweet can go viral and be seen by millions".
This story breaks that mold in that it involves social media censoring private conversations via DM. If you think that's OK for Twitter on its platform, is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail?
This kind of mess is why I respected Wikileaks so much for all those years including the 2016 leaks. Leaking is an art that requires dumping verifiable and irrefutable documents to as many people as possible so they can independently investigate them. These plant jobs in partisan media will never be received credibly.
To be honest it sounds like a regular end of the election craziness. To all those people, who think this is somehow special and deserves special new set of rules, I can only point to 2016 ( Comey saga that also included Guliani ). It is not special. It is not new. It is still speech. It may be lies ( and I am sure we will find out soon enough ) and I get that a lot of people can be influenced. I get it. And it still think it is risky to the existing system that RELIES on lies flowing freely.
What I do not get is why some people honestly do believe that an average person needs to be protected from lies by a censor? And who ensures censor is not a liar? Who guards the guards? The question is important as people seem to be clamoring for rather powerful guards of 'what is true truth'.
I 'm really glad that social media are discrediting themselves. Censorship has been going on for years but the blatant covid-powered covert misinformation along with the blatant suppression of competitors might finally turn off enough people away from them. I always though of them as the continuation of reality-show trash TV , which always had an audience but nowhere near to the proportions it has today (even if it's dressed up with makeup and ironed suits). If people learn to finally shut up and listen instead of shouting it will be a good thing for public life. Or they may just realize there's no way to agree and everyone goes their own way. Both are better than a fruitless stalemate.
(easy with the flagging guys. half the comments here are flagged. You re supposed to flag spam not anything that you wish wasnt there. wishful thinking isnt gonna help your cause)
One might even argue that Facebook/Twitter are doing this explicitly to ensure a party is put in power that won't try to reform them in any way. Their actions show it, and their political donations show it. That's my putting on the tin foil, but I think you could make such an argument. We always talk about Big Oil, etc being friends to Republicans, but often ignore Big Tech's close ties to Democrats.
I don't pay for twitter, I don't have any reasonable expectations for a SLA regarding anything including DMs. Just like I have no responsibility to listen to people on soapboxes on street corners, and soap companies have no responsibility to provide soapboxes to anyone to shout from.
It's not just that, they (Twitter) were actively suspending people that were posting the article from Google/Bing cached pages. They have also seemingly prevented the story from trending very high or very long.
weird that there is actually no mention of these materials being hacked from anywhere though, or did I miss that?
It seems like this computer shop fellow voluntarily gave over this hard drive only after the computer in question became his property (as a result of someone not collecting the computer and not paying the bill)
Basically, you can encrypt a message over any medium (facebook, twitter, email, etc.). Wasn't super secure by any means, but the media companies wouldn't know what's being shared.
Honestly, I might rework it (not utilizing keybase). I think I can make it decentralized and / or super easy to use. It's already pretty much plug-and-play provided you know the recipients email.
[+] [-] Karunamon|5 years ago|reply
There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging the link to each other, and blocking people who share screenshots, and not invite serious scrutiny or action.
The legislative blowback is going to suck. Section 230 is an ordinary law, not a constitutional right or based on one, and that means it's exposed to all the usual political fighting.
[+] [-] jeremyjh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bduerst|5 years ago|reply
The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.
[+] [-] DSingularity|5 years ago|reply
I don’t know what to think anymore because I don’t understand how this censorship will have any effect other than causing the story to spread like fire.
[+] [-] rbecker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heisenbit|5 years ago|reply
When looking at the legalities keep in mind that these companies have been explicitly warned by the F.B.I. of such possibilities and have spent time combing through their own databases and have identified such events.
[+] [-] AzzieElbab|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] learnstats2|5 years ago|reply
This explains why individual billionaires bought all the newspapers.
[+] [-] vonmoltke|5 years ago|reply
I can't find this stated anywhere except HN posts. What is the original source for this?
[+] [-] raxxorrax|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|5 years ago|reply
The GOP is prioritizing § 230 reform. Given their likely fall from power and prioritization of the SCOTUS confirmation, as well as Democrat control of the House and its focus on stimulus bills, the short-term threat is minute.
From an amoral government relations perspective, heavier moderation makes sense. A Biden spoof going viral during the election would attract the attention of incoming Democrat legislators. That creates a medium-term threat where there isn't one.
That said, I'm surprised they chose to block the content over de-prioritise it algorithmically and flag it with a warning.
[+] [-] afrojack123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CyberRabbi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iovrthoughtthis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ausjke|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimbius|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iamsb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afrojack123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] excerionsforte|5 years ago|reply
This is not new. You will be censored or banned on Hacker News for not following rules. You will not see the distribution of the NY Post's material on this site.
I applaud them for enforcing rules, but not for being lenient with these actors. Free Speech has limits especially in someone elses' house, you should all know this.
Furthermore Reform Section 230 is political crap going nowhere. Any invokation of that here is political nonsense.
[+] [-] fooey|5 years ago|reply
As a legislative move, this is changing their bet to the horse that's about to win. The social media companies are clearly more afraid longterm of what happens if they let this kind of stunt spread than they are afraid of the lame duck.
[+] [-] rmrfstar|5 years ago|reply
That the email metadata was not released implies the emails are either inauthentic, or that the post did not contact someone with basic competence in computer forensics.
Either possibility seriously undercuts the article's credibility.
[1] https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1316407424648179717
[+] [-] benmmurphy|5 years ago|reply
All it looks like to me is some Russian username. I don’t see how it ties to a real person. I haven’t read the article so maybe the post explains that bit.
[+] [-] Felz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawa3495|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daveevad|5 years ago|reply
revealing the dkim signatures at a later point would be twice as effective from a political and public opinion standpoint.
[+] [-] dsaavy|5 years ago|reply
We need to take all of the press releases about "leaks" with a grain of salt, because I keep seeing "leaks" without actual content or verification. It's bullshit and why places that provide the actual contents of leaks are so important. Yes, certain publications are more trustworthy than others historically, but that doesn't mean they get an indefinite pass on providing verified information.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
Edit: I've changed it from https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos... to what looks like it may be a more neutral source. Other users have supplied these related links:
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-hunter-joe-bid...
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...
[+] [-] pseudo0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dionian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] likeafox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benmmurphy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hirundo|5 years ago|reply
This story breaks that mold in that it involves social media censoring private conversations via DM. If you think that's OK for Twitter on its platform, is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail?
[+] [-] shiado|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Plough_Jogger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spamizbad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|5 years ago|reply
What I do not get is why some people honestly do believe that an average person needs to be protected from lies by a censor? And who ensures censor is not a liar? Who guards the guards? The question is important as people seem to be clamoring for rather powerful guards of 'what is true truth'.
[+] [-] icpmacdo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|5 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/noahmanskar/status/1316459416414302208?s...
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] esotericimpl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
(easy with the flagging guys. half the comments here are flagged. You re supposed to flag spam not anything that you wish wasnt there. wishful thinking isnt gonna help your cause)
[+] [-] partiallypro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] optimuspaul|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawa3495|5 years ago|reply
It seems like this computer shop fellow voluntarily gave over this hard drive only after the computer in question became his property (as a result of someone not collecting the computer and not paying the bill)
LOL now this post has been flagged wtfff
[+] [-] rectang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|5 years ago|reply
https://lettergram.github.io/AnyCrypt/
Basically, you can encrypt a message over any medium (facebook, twitter, email, etc.). Wasn't super secure by any means, but the media companies wouldn't know what's being shared.
Honestly, I might rework it (not utilizing keybase). I think I can make it decentralized and / or super easy to use. It's already pretty much plug-and-play provided you know the recipients email.