[KrishnaShripad]

> "Actually no, you can't say we treat everyone equally, we're manually going in and exempting certain people from scrutiny, and that's entirely within our discretion."

Isn't that literally what Twitter does as well? Making exceptions for Politicians and Government Representatives? Or does HN's bias towards Twitter exempt it from any form of scrutiny?

[numpad0]

I don't think this has too much with celebrities, but about exempting "problematic people" from being repeatedly banned by algorithmic and applied AI systems. IOW, they don't have controls over internal mechanisms of so-called algorithms, and a separate suppression system is used to reduce harm.

[nl]

[flagged]

[dang]

Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. You perpetuated this one badly and that's not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[KrishnaShripad]

When it comes to India, Twitter is typically at the forefront of mainstreaming propaganda and selectively applying rules. So my perspective comes from that (since this article concerns feud between Meta and The Wire which covers India). Whenever Twitter gets mentioned (atleast in HN) concerning its role in policy with regards to politicians it mostly gets a pass.

Let me put it this way: what you feel Meta is doing in the West, is what many in India (like me) feel Twitter is doing here. And the sentiment I see is mostly anti Meta and mostly pro Twitter here.

After all it is my perspective and I could be wrong (as I obviously don't have statistics to say if HN definitely has a Twitter bias or not). But I believe I have a right to express my opinion on what I feel is HN sentiment towards big tech censorship (which mostly circles around Meta but rarely around Twitter).