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

[lil devils x]

This article being linked is something that was taken to the NY post, like with the Guardian. They already made their judgements. Why is it valid for the Guardian to make that choice and not for NY Post?

Twitter didn't censor the posts about that story despite it also having personal information being leaked illegally. They only do it in this case.


And the public interest in this case is less about the guy smoking crack and more about him introducing some executive to his then VP dad when they have stated that such a thing never occured.

They are fine to make THEIR judgements, that has no impact on twitter btw, NY post can publish whatever they want, it is their private business. Twitter is their own and make their own decisions. That is who private businesses work. It is no different than a pub saying they don't want that advertised on their cork board. Twitter is and should be able to decide what they allow to be used under their site/ service. Otherwise you are proposing taking away twitters rights to decide their own standards for their site and that isn't right either. No one goes to your house and demands what you should allow to take place there, the same applies to twitter.

 

[Iron]

Not only that, but happened to dump the computers with an ethically-challenged repairman who felt like sifting through the hard drives (to my understanding not illegal, but viewed as poor practice in the computer repairs field) and luckily enough just happened to also be fanatically pro-Trump to ship a copy straight to Rudy Giuliani as well as the FBI.

I mean, that's all the most amazing luck, isn't it?

Yeah the story is fishy.

First, I'm begging you to take whatever preconceived notions you have about "publisher vs platform" and Section 230 and throw it out the fucking window, and then start from scratch with experts who know what they're talking about and won't make intellectually or outright factually dishonest claims about them. Because by the sound of your argument, you're taking your cue from pundits on the right, who have absolutely warped this to the point where it bears little resemblance to reality.

Second, it does make a difference. The Escapist is NOT liable for content that *users* post on the site. CDA 230 provides a shield against legal action for websites when a commenter posts something that's offensive, objectionable or defamatory that results in a lawsuit against that site; the expectation is that such sites will perform good faith content moderation, though courts in some cases have upheld 230 protection in cases where sites were aware of the objectionable content and did not remove it. More importantly, CDA 230 is extremely broad when it comes to third-party content and covers not just internet service providers and "publishers" like the Escapist, but also social media platforms. It makes no difference if the service provide curates third-party content AND publishes its own home-grown content (which the Escapist does, and which Twitter does not).

If you really want to learn more about Section 230 and other legal protections under the CDA that are currently under attack, strongly encourage you to read reputable sources like the Cato Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Mike Masnick at Techdirt, who is one of the foremost authorities on what Section 230 is (and isn't).

I didn't know this bit
"though courts in some cases have upheld 230 protection in cases where sites were aware of the objectionable content and did not remove it."
I thought they were always liable if they didn't police their site. The law assumes some action from the owners.

Youtube cracked down on independent content creators around the time it decided to begin producing its own content in its bid to try and transition into a semi-subscription service (Youtube Red which I think was renamed because it's very similar to a pr0n site). I thought this was related to it.

 

[Dreiko]

They are fine to make THEIR judgements, that has no impact on twitter btw, NY post can publish whatever they want, it is their private business. Twitter is their own and make their own decisions. That is who private businesses work. It is no different than a pub saying they don't want that advertised on their cork board. Twitter is and should be able to decide what they allow to be used under their site/ service. Otherwise you are proposing taking away twitters rights to decide their own standards for their site and that isn't right either. No one goes to your house and demands what you should allow to take place there, the same applies to twitter.

Right and if we regulate twitter like pubs like I mentioned, such that when something happens there the pub is partially held responsible too, that's fine. The way it is now however twitter is treated like a platform and not a publisher.

At the moment they enjoy being treated like a public street every time someone slips and breaks their leg because of something they neglected to correct but they quickly morph into a pub when they have their interests to push for.


In any case, twitter already doesn't set its own standards. It already is compromised, due to the facts I mentioned in the previous post about their blasphemy mentions and their removal of anti-chinese government terms intended for the freedom of the people in HK and taiwan, there is nothing left to protect any longer. Whatever twitter should be able to decide for themselves, they've given up on.

 

[Houseman]

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

When it becomes CP.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.

Technically the Escapist isn't liable for what we users write here on the forums. Only what it chooses to publisher from writers etc.

Moderation is more to try and maintain the forums for so everyone can use them without it deteriorating into whoever can throw the most weighted label on another user and convince others it's true.

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.

You'd think Hillary would have lent them the "bleaching" program she used on her hard drives etc lol

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.

It's the applying pressure thing that could be seen as a big problem especially when it was to get rid of people investigating the business connected to his son.

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.

What about Tax returns?
Correspondence such as the ones allegedly recorded of Melania or others?
Also this leaked data isn't involving credit card or social security numbers that anyone is aware of, or at least that wasn't what was published.

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.

Unless your device is entirely broken then Windows by default has a way to scrub the hard drive before reselling it so stuff can't recovered.
If you give it to repair shop you normally have to consent to them accessing and doing stuff with your data. With teen photos etc it would be an iffy case over consent etc and if they could consent to allow the repair shop to do stuff but this case is grown adults.

 

[MrCalavera]

This smells awfully like someone trying to recreate Hillary's e-mail scandal. Poorly.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That isn't how it works here regardless. When they foreclose on a home, the local sheriff or constable remove the previous home owner and their belongings by placing them outside. The former homeowner has a certain number of days ( varies by location) to come pick their belongings before they have them hauled off.

I am saying though that regardless of whoever obtains possession of a HD/SSD/or other data disk should not then be able to publish previous data on that HD/SSD without the consent of who previously owned that data. Things like emails, photos, Social security numbers, credit card numbers, medical data ect should be considered protected regardless of who obtains it. This would help solve a great deal of problems associated with data tech and closing the loopholes people are currently using to exploit/sell such data.

Problem with that.

People have found USB sticks or cameras and to try and get them back to their original owners they've uploaded some info or pictures from them online to ask people to share them to try and help people find the owner.

That would then be illegal under what you propose.

Not only that, but happened to dump the computers with an ethically-challenged repairman who felt like sifting through the hard drives (to my understanding not illegal, but viewed as poor practice in the computer repairs field) and luckily enough just happened to also be fanatically pro-Trump to ship a copy straight to Rudy Giuliani as well as the FBI.

I mean, that's all the most amazing luck, isn't it?

If it was as was claimed in the article "Waterlogged" then said repairman would have to likely back up the data to start with.
Then if the person didn't come to collect it (and PAY) for it being repaired then said repairman would very much want to find the owner to try and ask what they wanted done so would likely then start sifting through the data to find out to be able to return it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

They are fine to make THEIR judgements, that has no impact on twitter btw, NY post can publish whatever they want, it is their private business. Twitter is their own and make their own decisions. That is who private businesses work. It is no different than a pub saying they don't want that advertised on their cork board. Twitter is and should be able to decide what they allow to be used under their site/ service. Otherwise you are proposing taking away twitters rights to decide their own standards for their site and that isn't right either. No one goes to your house and demands what you should allow to take place there, the same applies to twitter.

Part of the 230 protections are also about maintaining neutrality of the platform. You know that whole idea of net neutrality people fought to try and keep tooth and nail before. We've gone from trying to make sure all ISPs must provide the content requested and not block or throttle certain content to now being OK with Twitter and facebook blocking certain news and info.
There's already enough attempts from companies to bury info without having the social media sites start blocking it too. Hell it would mean any research leaked early on by researchers in China could be claimed by CCP to be hacked info and such news suppressed. How about the TMZ videos showing the full context of Amber Heard's video showing she deliberately set it up to make Depp look bad? That would be hacked material too technically.

 

[Exley97]

Part of the 230 protections are also about maintaining neutrality of the platform. You know that whole idea of net neutrality people fought to try and keep tooth and nail before. We've gone from trying to make sure all ISPs must provide the content requested and not block or throttle certain content to now being OK with Twitter and facebook blocking certain news and info.

OMFG...no. NO. There's nothing in CDA 230 about requiring "neutrality," political or otherwise. I don't know why people keep saying this (though I can guess) but it's fiction.

Seriously, stop. And please read up on 230 and the CDA, starting with this:

Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

Hello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to resp…

www.techdirt.com

 

[lil devils x]

Part of the 230 protections are also about maintaining neutrality of the platform. You know that whole idea of net neutrality people fought to try and keep tooth and nail before. We've gone from trying to make sure all ISPs must provide the content requested and not block or throttle certain content to now being OK with Twitter and facebook blocking certain news and info.
There's already enough attempts from companies to bury info without having the social media sites start blocking it too. Hell it would mean any research leaked early on by researchers in China could be claimed by CCP to be hacked info and such news suppressed. How about the TMZ videos showing the full context of Amber Heard's video showing she deliberately set it up to make Depp look bad? That would be hacked material too technically.

Um What? LOL What are you on about? IF Twitter wanted to go full on Green party they could at will. They could ban any non green party content if they really wanted to. Would likely lose business for it and people would shift to competing services, but there is NOTHING saying Facebook, Twitter or any social media site has to be unbiased.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from making or using competing services though. Have at it if that is what you want to do. They are under no obligation to cater to you or anyone else for that matter though. Their house, their rules. Simple as that.

 

[lil devils x]

Problem with that.

People have found USB sticks or cameras and to try and get them back to their original owners they've uploaded some info or pictures from them online to ask people to share them to try and help people find the owner.

That would then be illegal under what you propose.



If it was as was claimed in the article "Waterlogged" then said repairman would have to likely back up the data to start with.
Then if the person didn't come to collect it (and PAY) for it being repaired then said repairman would very much want to find the owner to try and ask what they wanted done so would likely then start sifting through the data to find out to be able to return it.

They very well could post where the USB was found and the date it was found on and describe some of the contents on said USB without going in to detail. Saying something like 'containing graduation photos" and have people describe to them what was on it and what type of USB it was to prove it belonged to them would be sufficient. There is no reason to post photos of what could be their dead child or something because you have no idea the circumstances of said photos. The location, date and generic description should suffice without actually invading their privacy protections.

You act like this is harder than it is, It isn't.

 

[Trunkage]

When it becomes CP.

And what happens?

 

[Houseman]

No one is stopping you or anyone else from making or using competing services though.

People keep saying this. It's not true. It never was true. Every sort of alternative to Twitter or Facebook has been attacked and forced to shut down, and the business they rely on to exist have refused to serve them.

You complain about fake ads and voter suppression. That's freedom of speech too. Ads that say "vote third party!" or attack ads on candidates, or ads that say that you can vote by text message.

For example:

Trump Campaign Disproportionately Encouraged Black Americans Not to Vote in 2016

To the surprise of no one again, Trump campaign targeted social media ads in an attempt to convince target audiences not to vote. SO how would you respond to the press showing up and informing you that you were on a list targeted to convince you not to vote in the election? Leaked Database...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

So you recognize that, while something may be legal, it may not be moral, correct? We're saying the same thing.

And what happens?

That which normally happens to CP.

 

[Trunkage]

OMFG...no. NO. There's nothing in CDA 230 about requiring "neutrality," political or otherwise. I don't know why people keep saying this (though I can guess) but it's fiction.

Seriously, stop. And please read up on 230 and the CDA, starting with this:

Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

Hello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to resp…

www.techdirt.com

That was a good article. There were some instances I hadn't thought of that they covered

 

[Trunkage]

That which normally happens to CP.

You're funny Houseman

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're funny Houseman

Debatable.

 

[Exley97]

People keep saying this. It's not true. It never was true. Every sort of alternative to Twitter or Facebook has been attacked and forced to shut down, and the business they rely on to exist have refused to serve them.

Huh? "Forced to shut down"? How so? And what do you mean by businesses refused to serve them?

 

[Trunkage]

Debatable.

If you hadn't noticed, he's gone politician and stopped answering questions properly

I wonder why...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you hadn't noticed, he's gone politician and stopped answering questions properly

I wonder why...

It is truly a mystery.

 

[Gergar12]

That is where people discussed these things long before the internet existed and where they still do in areas without internet access. 33 Million people in the US are still without internet. You can't even get internet everywhere in the US. There are mountain regions, for example, they have not even been able to do so yet.

Living Without Internet? Join Nearly 33M Americans Who Aren't As Well!

The FCC says 99.99% of the U.S. has internet access, yet 10% of Americans are living without internet. Who’s not online and why?

www.allconnect.com

If anything, we should regulate the social media for would be privacy protection, not expecting them to let you do whatever you want in their place of business. Like I stated earlier. If the people want to build an internet town hall, there is nothing stopping them from petitioning their government to do so just like they built the real town halls. However, just as you are not allowed to say whatever you want in city hall, and they will haul you out, you can still get tossed from there as well doing the same.

I agree with privacy, but good luck getting it passed. As for private emails, I wouldn't even use the same phone for my job if I was a high ranking US official let alone the same email.

As for why we don't have fiber optic internet, yes fiber optics you heard me, it's because greedy ISPs were given billions of dollars to do so, but pocketed the money because the government acted like idiots giving the money without oversight.

If we don't get the ISPs or the government to fund last-mile internet connections to a rural community it's not the fault of the people who have internet.