New York Post editor calls out Twitter for refusing to let his publication post one of their stories

[lil devils x]

I am not sure I disagree with Twitter here on having a blanket policy of not allowing the sharing or discussion of illegally obtained content. This was supposedly information that was obtained through hacking? News outlets can still publish this information at their discretion on their own sites, however, they are not allowed to share it on twitter.

1) Allowing people to share hacked material or discussion of said hacked material opens the gate to encouraging and spreading hacking.
2) I view people's email, and/or contents on their server are their private property, and should be considered no different than theft if such property when people hack/ steal it. Taking it and spreading it online is like selling or distributing stolen property. News agencies writing articles about it and profiting from it is profiting from stolen property.
3) Whistleblowers are different than others in exposing this stolen property, as they are doing so for the greater good and usually have been given access to said property in the first place so it isn't really theft.
4) someone hacking from the outside though is stealing and profiting from doing so. For example if someone from the DNC hacked Ivanka Trump and found out she was discussing her product lines with investors she met while Travelling with Trump on Official Presidential business, I would see that as wrong and that the content should be censored due to it being obtained by illegal means, as that is not enough to be considered " for the greater good" either way. It isn't even telling us anything we didn't already know, or does it really even pertain to either candidate, this is their kids. In Biden's Son's case, this too is pretty much the same here. They hacked him hoping to find something and found something as boring as this. This was not the same as seeing a big problem, like Snowden did for example, and then gathering the information you need to expose this. In this case it isn't even a big deal considering what family members of politicians have been doing for ages now and Trump's own family being the worst offenders we ever had. But the worst part here for me is that they targeted the politicians kids here to steal from them. I am not okay with that.
5) Where is the line drawn on hacking? Is it okay if someone hacks you and shares your personal, private emails with the public?
6) Why should Twitter facilitate any of that at all in the first place? They likely already asked these same questions and came to the same conclusions I have. If they get in the business of picking and choosing whose hacked information they allowed shared, that means they will be having to put in a lot more work and will be accused of bias and everything else. That would put them in a never ending position of having to pick and choose and it is simply better to just stay out of it entirely and have the same rules apply to everyone by saying " no hacked content, no discussing hacked content closing the loopholes..

7)Hacking people is bad and should be prosecuted, including going as far as extraditing hackers from other nations, even in personal or private hacks and government should be forced to comply with this in order to have trade deals negotiated at all. If it really is that important to be shared, they can go through the trouble to get proper warrants like everyone else. With the exception of whistleblowers, however just calling everyone a whistleblower doesn't work either.

 

[Trunkage]

Copy and paste. Make your own quote tags.

Speaking about Cuties, and not MetalHead's hypothetical...

Morally, yes, they have all failed in my opinion. The degeneracy has spread throughout all of them.
Is it JUST AS BAD as real CP? No, of course not.
Does it toe the line? I think it comes dangerously close.

So what does it mean to ‘cross the line’?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I am not sure I disagree with Twitter here on having a blanket policy of not allowing the sharing or discussion of illegally obtained content. This was supposedly information that was obtained through hacking? News outlets can still publish this information at their discretion on their own sites, however, they are not allowed to share it on twitter.

1) Allowing people to share hacked material or discussion of said hacked material opens the gate to encouraging and spreading hacking.
2) I view people's email, and/or contents on their server are their private property, and should be considered no different than theft if such property when people hack/ steal it. Taking it and spreading it online is like selling or distributing stolen property. News agencies writing articles about it and profiting from it is profiting from stolen property.
3) Whistleblowers are different than others in exposing this stolen property, as they are doing so for the greater good and usually have been given access to said property in the first place so it isn't really theft.
4) someone hacking from the outside though is stealing and profiting from doing so. For example if someone from the DNC hacked Ivanka Trump and found out she was discussing her product lines with investors she met while Travelling with Trump on Official Presidential business, I would see that as wrong and that the content should be censored due to it being obtained by illegal means, as that is not enough to be considered " for the greater good" either way. It isn't even telling us anything we didn't already know, or does it really even pertain to either candidate, this is their kids. In Biden's Son's case, this too is pretty much the same here. They hacked him hoping to find something and found something as boring as this. This was not the same as seeing a big problem, like Snowden did for example, and then gathering the information you need to expose this. In this case it isn't even a big deal considering what family members of politicians have been doing for ages now and Trump's own family being the worst offenders we ever had. But the worst part here for me is that they targeted the politicians kids here to steal from them. I am not okay with that.
5) Where is the line drawn on hacking? Is it okay if someone hacks you and shares your personal, private emails with the public?
6) Why should Twitter facilitate any of that at all in the first place? They likely already asked these same questions and came to the same conclusions I have. If they get in the business of picking and choosing whose hacked information they allowed shared, that means they will be having to put in a lot more work and will be accused of bias and everything else. That would put them in a never ending position of having to pick and choose and it is simply better to just stay out of it entirely and have the same rules apply to everyone by saying " no hacked content, no discussing hacked content closing the loopholes..

7)Hacking people is bad and should be prosecuted, including going as far as extraditing hackers from other nations, even in personal or private hacks and government should be forced to comply with this in order to have trade deals negotiated at all. If it really is that important to be shared, they can go through the trouble to get proper warrants like everyone else. With the exception of whistleblowers, however just calling everyone a whistleblower doesn't work either.

1) Assuming the article is true the material isn't hacked. Like in terms of computer literacy the way the files were acquired is likely something I could do even with the fact my coding ability is so limited it's near non existent. It's just a hard drive recovery tool being used on an old computer hard drive to pull files. Hell it might not even have been that complex it could just have been some-one copying old data off the hard drive normally. It's a worrying standard to claim "You have to prove this data wasn't hacked" now to be allowed to share it. Applying that to gaming means basically you can't share any link ever to leaked info because it might have been obtained by a hacker not an employee. Same with data mining in games that's more hacking that hard drive file recovery.

2) If you drop you computer off at a place to repair it you basically give them the right to do what they feel they need to with your stuff. If they find some-thing bad they can report it to police etc too. If you don't come back to collect and don't pay for the repair and didn't wipe the drives before sending it in? Whatever is there is now the property of the repair shop basically.

3) However they may be looking in areas outside of the one they were assigned to because a proverbial digital door was left open.

4) Again they data recovered an old computer from his organisation that was brought in for repair. It's fairly standard practice if something is really badly damaged to back up the data before working on it.

5) Do you have to circumvent a form of security either by breaking the protection or social engineering? If no then it's not hacking. Which in this case it's just pulling files from an old Hard Drive. You can get kit to do it for $20 on Amazon it's not even program stuff it's like plug and play casing kit you put the hard drive in and can connect it via USB.

6) It's pretty weird timing considering Twitter has people with verified check marks who have doxxed people before on there. Suddenly they care about this? Not some news networks having acquired an elderly womans information and written an article about going to talk to her accusing her of being a Russian agent........

So what does it mean to ‘cross the line’?

Enough that the co-founder of Sundance film festival could jerk off to it........The film won awards from said festival......... and one of the cofounders is in Jail for....... well you can probably guess.

 

[Trunkage]

Enough that the co-founder of Sundance film festival could jerk off to it........The film won awards from said festival......... and one of the cofounders is in Jail for....... well you can probably guess.

And does that mean its pulled from Netflix by the government?

 

[Iron]

Nothing ever happens

 

[Iron]

Enough that the co-founder of Sundance film festival could jerk off to it........The film won awards from said festival......... and one of the cofounders is in Jail for....... well you can probably guess.

You can find legit legally-made kiddie porn made in Denmark in the 70s floating online. I made a post about someplace else here. Hell, the Green Party in Germany is notorious for its founding members and roots coming from the pedophilia movement in the 80s. Remind yourself that pedo-shit was legal in Denmark in the 70s, and there was a movement for pedo legalization in the 80s in Germany.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And does that mean its pulled from Netflix by the government?

Well that will likely be for a gallery of the public to decide as again artistic media has merit but even drawings of underage characters are deemed criminal.

As I said before neither direction will be good here. Neither ruling a good outcome really.

I mean most countries do still ban or censor films even the USA.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You can find legit legally-made kiddie porn made in Denmark in the 70s floating online. I made a post about someplace else here. Hell, the Green Party in Germany is notorious for its founding members and roots coming from the pedophilia movement in the 80s. Remind yourself that pedo-shit was legal in Denmark in the 70s, and there was a movement for pedo legalization in the 80s in Germany.

Oh I'm not shocked it happened in the UK around that time too (lobbying at least no actual films made). It was quickly and swiftly torn apart.

 

[Iron]

Oh I'm not shocked it happened in the UK around that time too (lobbying at least no actual films made). It was quickly and swiftly torn apart.

Two generations have since passed, and we will see it raise its head again.

 

[Agema]

I find it very hard to see how Twitter can justify restricting this: it seems to me to be very clearly valid as news.

Currently it's a great big nothingburger - they'd need to turn out something a lot more damning before it were a serious problem for Joe Biden.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I find it very hard to see how Twitter can justify restricting this: it seems to me to be very clearly valid as news.

Currently it's a great big nothingburger - they'd need to turn out something a lot more damning before it were a serious problem for Joe Biden.

I dunno foreign interference and possible abuse of office isn't a good look. Especially when you're trying to present Trump as the more corrupt one.

Nor are the photos alleged to be of his son with a prostitute and a crack pipe

 

[Gordon_4]

Update:

The Whitehouse Press secretary has had her account locked by twitter too now

Twitter locks out Kayleigh McEnany from her personal account for sharing New York Post's Hunter Biden report

Twitter punished White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing the explosive New York Post report on Hunter Biden on her personal account.

www.foxnews.com

Good. The more alleged professionals stay the fuck off Twitter, the better.

 

[Agema]

I dunno foreign interference and possible abuse of office isn't a good look. Especially when you're trying to present Trump as the more corrupt one.

If the story is nothing more than "Met a Ukrainian businessman", then there is no story here. Politicians meet businessmen, including foreign ones, all the time. It's a core aspect of them doing their job, and in leisure time an inevitability given the social circles they move in. I mean, contextually, foreign businessmen can pay £100,000 to play tennis with the British PM, have been able to for years, and it's widely tolerated. Trump meets with them regularly at Mar-a-Lago or golfing.

It's corruption if Biden did something inappropriate or untoward as a result of this meeting: until further investigation reveals anything useful in that regard, shrug and move on.

 

[Exley97]

What do you think was going to happen once Trump tweets were removed? This was going to happen. Twitter just claimed this as conspiratorial. You should have been calling them out back then

There's a distinct line between Tweeting verifiable lies and obvious conspiracy theories and Tweeting about a major headline from a well-known, reputable (I use that term somewhat loosely) U.S. newspaper.

 

[Iron]

There's a distinct line between Tweeting verifiable lies and obvious conspiracy theories and Tweeting about a major headline from a well-known, reputable (I use that term somewhat loosely) U.S. newspaper.

A platform shouldn't make the difference unless it wants to be a curator of content. The escapist is liable for what is written in it, by its writers and users, therefore it moderates content. Facebook is an ad-farm while Twitter pretends to be a social-media platform. When it refuses to comply with its own definition and determine which content is suitable for viewers, then it is no longer a platform.

 

[tstorm823]

I am not sure I disagree with Twitter here on having a blanket policy of not allowing the sharing or discussion of illegally obtained content. This was supposedly information that was obtained through hacking? News outlets can still publish this information at their discretion on their own sites, however, they are not allowed to share it on twitter.

It's dumber than hacked information. It's supposedly information that was found on a laptop in a repair shop. That being said, put me in camp "doubt it's real", because this is comically dumb. "Unknown man who might be Hunter Biden drops off 3 scrap computers and one happens to be filled with incriminating emails" is a dumb story that should be fake.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I find it very hard to see how Twitter can justify restricting this: it seems to me to be very clearly valid as news.

Currently it's a great big nothingburger - they'd need to turn out something a lot more damning before it were a serious problem for Joe Biden.

Well, this is how:


It is awful.

 

[Exley97]

I am not sure I disagree with Twitter here on having a blanket policy of not allowing the sharing or discussion of illegally obtained content. This was supposedly information that was obtained through hacking? News outlets can still publish this information at their discretion on their own sites, however, they are not allowed to share it on twitter.

1) Allowing people to share hacked material or discussion of said hacked material opens the gate to encouraging and spreading hacking.
2) I view people's email, and/or contents on their server are their private property, and should be considered no different than theft if such property when people hack/ steal it. Taking it and spreading it online is like selling or distributing stolen property. News agencies writing articles about it and profiting from it is profiting from stolen property.
3) Whistleblowers are different than others in exposing this stolen property, as they are doing so for the greater good and usually have been given access to said property in the first place so it isn't really theft.
4) someone hacking from the outside though is stealing and profiting from doing so. For example if someone from the DNC hacked Ivanka Trump and found out she was discussing her product lines with investors she met while Travelling with Trump on Official Presidential business, I would see that as wrong and that the content should be censored due to it being obtained by illegal means, as that is not enough to be considered " for the greater good" either way. It isn't even telling us anything we didn't already know, or does it really even pertain to either candidate, this is their kids. In Biden's Son's case, this too is pretty much the same here. They hacked him hoping to find something and found something as boring as this. This was not the same as seeing a big problem, like Snowden did for example, and then gathering the information you need to expose this. In this case it isn't even a big deal considering what family members of politicians have been doing for ages now and Trump's own family being the worst offenders we ever had. But the worst part here for me is that they targeted the politicians kids here to steal from them. I am not okay with that.
5) Where is the line drawn on hacking? Is it okay if someone hacks you and shares your personal, private emails with the public?
6) Why should Twitter facilitate any of that at all in the first place? They likely already asked these same questions and came to the same conclusions I have. If they get in the business of picking and choosing whose hacked information they allowed shared, that means they will be having to put in a lot more work and will be accused of bias and everything else. That would put them in a never ending position of having to pick and choose and it is simply better to just stay out of it entirely and have the same rules apply to everyone by saying " no hacked content, no discussing hacked content closing the loopholes..

7)Hacking people is bad and should be prosecuted, including going as far as extraditing hackers from other nations, even in personal or private hacks and government should be forced to comply with this in order to have trade deals negotiated at all. If it really is that important to be shared, they can go through the trouble to get proper warrants like everyone else. With the exception of whistleblowers, however just calling everyone a whistleblower doesn't work either.

I understand your positions here, which are not unreasonable, and I know many people that share them. However...

1) I can assure you as a cybersecurity reporter, that genie is already well out of the bottle and has been for years. Encouraging hacking should be a non-factor for Twitter in this equation. You can't encourage people any further than they already have been at this point.
2) Treating personal data as private property is an increasingly popular legal concept that many have pushed over the last decade, but it is not the law in the U.S. And the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was written in 1986 (!!!), is riddled with holes and inconsistencies that sometimes make it hard to enforce in today's world. Legality aside, I think the sticking point for your argument is this: how do you know if materials actually were obtained through illegal hacking? Do you wait until charges have been filed or someone has been convincted (that seems very impractical)? Or do you just take the word of whoever's data has been released? In the example of the NYT's scoop on tax records, many on the right believe the data was illegally accessed (even though the article says otherwise), so Twitter's policy could have blocked stories like that too (to say nothing of Wikileaks stories like "Collateral Murder"). I think this is a much thornier situation than
3) The greater good? I mean, the guy who obtained Hunter Biden's hard drive and leaked this data 100% believes he's doing this for the greater good (he may be absolutely crazy, based on interviews, he seems sincere). So who decides what the "the greater good"? Jack Dorsey and his blood amulet? NO THANKS.
4) Again, you're asking platforms like Twitter to exercise editorial judgment about what is truly newsworthy and what is just salacious political gossip. And trust me when I say you don't want Silicon Valley making those decisions. Also, the boring nature of the NY Post's scoop is an argument AGAINST blocking it because people are on the right now absolutely believe Twitter is censoring the story to protect Biden.
5) No, it's not okay and the people that do it should be prosecuted. But we shouldn't penalize legitimate news outlets and reporters that REPORT on the hacks (as long as they didn't directly take part in said illegal activity).
6) I think you're giving the executive team at Twitter a lot more credit than you should. I'm not sure they HAVE thought about all these questions, given the number of times they've screwed up such content moderation efforts in the past. Regardless, they ARE going to be in never-ending loop of reviewing content like this and making judgment calls about the greater good, what is truly "hacked" under the CFAA, and what a true whistleblower is. And that's just for the hacked materials policy! Remember, another reason Twitter took action is because the NY Post report is because it questioned the accuracy of the report. So now Twitter will have to perform editorial reviews on all such stories going forward? That's crazy. They'll NEVER be able to scale that (hell, the can't even scale responses for threats and harassment) and they don't have specific, stated guidelines for how they determine what news article is well-reported and what article suffers from a "lack of authoritative reporting."
7) First, who decides who a "true" whistleblower is? Second, I think you're vastly underestimating how much information is over-classified by governments, and how hard it is to get data released through legitimate, legal channels. Twitter's policy is absolutely going to knee-cap a lot of the "greater good" stories you think should be exempt. Also, governments already DO prosecute and extradite cybercriminals and nation-state hackers, and use trade agreements and treaties as leverage. But proving something was hacked illegally can be extremely challenging, and it's even more difficult to attribute such crimes to specific actors. So Twitter will surely be in positions in the future where they'll have to make judgement calls on if data was truly hacked or not, relying on the word of the date owners. That's...not good.

 

[lil devils x]

1) Assuming the article is true the material isn't hacked. Like in terms of computer literacy the way the files were acquired is likely something I could do even with the fact my coding ability is so limited it's near non existent. It's just a hard drive recovery tool being used on an old computer hard drive to pull files. Hell it might not even have been that complex it could just have been some-one copying old data off the hard drive normally. It's a worrying standard to claim "You have to prove this data wasn't hacked" now to be allowed to share it. Applying that to gaming means basically you can't share any link ever to leaked info because it might have been obtained by a hacker not an employee. Same with data mining in games that's more hacking that hard drive file recovery.

2) If you drop you computer off at a place to repair it you basically give them the right to do what they feel they need to with your stuff. If they find some-thing bad they can report it to police etc too. If you don't come back to collect and don't pay for the repair and didn't wipe the drives before sending it in? Whatever is there is now the property of the repair shop basically.

3) However they may be looking in areas outside of the one they were assigned to because a proverbial digital door was left open.

4) Again they data recovered an old computer from his organisation that was brought in for repair. It's fairly standard practice if something is really badly damaged to back up the data before working on it.

5) Do you have to circumvent a form of security either by breaking the protection or social engineering? If no then it's not hacking. Which in this case it's just pulling files from an old Hard Drive. You can get kit to do it for $20 on Amazon it's not even program stuff it's like plug and play casing kit you put the hard drive in and can connect it via USB.

6) It's pretty weird timing considering Twitter has people with verified check marks who have doxxed people before on there. Suddenly they care about this? Not some news networks having acquired an elderly womans information and written an article about going to talk to her accusing her of being a Russian agent........


Enough that the co-founder of Sundance film festival could jerk off to it........The film won awards from said festival......... and one of the cofounders is in Jail for....... well you can probably guess.

My objections are to any illegally obtained material, if it wasn't illegally obtained I have no objection here. However, " revenge porn is not illegally obtained either" so there can also be issues of consent that could come into play as well in some regards and I do see private emails fitting into that category. I also see credit card data, social security numbers ect ALSO falling into that privacy issue even if they did legally pull them off a discarded laptop or hard drive, they should not be entitled to use those either at will. Private emails, photos. credit card data ect all would fall under need to consent before releasing to the public such even if they own the hard drive they are pulling them from if those things on that hard drive belonged to someone other than yourself. You should be the only one who should be able to consent to having your personal photos, emails, credit care of medical data made public regardless of where it might be stored.

With so many people out there that ignorantly resell their devices without having the knowledge or skills to protect their private information, you have millions of people's child photographs and other personal affects out there now that I think we do have to afford them privacy protections as well because just imagine some teenager ignorantly taking photos of themselves or others their own age or younger and some shop like this getting ahold of those and spreading them online as well? Yea, I don't think that just because it is on a hard drive means they can use it freely at will, that would be a bad precedent to set in terms of privacy due to the nature of hard disks themselves.

 

[lil devils x]

Well, this is how:


It is awful.

If you look at it from the other perspective of just because a repair shop received a hard drive with your social security number, credit card information, and medical data on it as well as photos of your kids, they still should not be entitled to use them as they see fit because that is a terrible precedent to set and that we should instead extend privacy to not only revenge porn but also to the other private information as well, because private things really should still require the consent of the person they are originally belonged to rather than being fair use for whoever to use as will as to not encourage everyone on the internet just to go and buy up all the old laptops they can find just so they can publish and sell all this personal data to malicious entities. If I were twitter, I would not want my service/ site filled up with people dumping other people's private data either. We really should extend our privacy laws to keep things like that protected and private regardless as it just comes across as a scummy thing to do in the first place. I see one's personal emails as just as protected as their personals photos, medical data and credit card information in that they should have to be required to consent for it to be publicly distributed.