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

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
So anyway...back to the issue at hand...

I still think they are likely to roll this back at some point when it becomes more rampant until better privacy laws are adopted. Just wait until someone hacks Twitter's personal emails and shares them on twitter but since they were not the original hackers then it is fine right?
 

Exley97

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
91
95
23
Country
United States
I still think they are likely to roll this back at some point when it becomes more rampant until better privacy laws are adopted. Just wait until someone hacks Twitter's personal emails and shares them on twitter but since they were not the original hackers then it is fine right?
I mean...Twitter just got hacked a couple months back with those stupid Bitcoin schemes and OG handles. Emails weren't spilled, but they definitely got access to internal data and admin tools, not to mention access to some pretty big verified Twitter accounts. So I don't think the take the subject of hacked data very lightly.

In any case, I disagree with you -- the fact that they rolled this back within about 24 hours, and the amount of heat they got (not just from the GOP but journalists and folks on the left) tells me they know they fucked this up and made *themselves* the story.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
So anyway...back to the issue at hand...

It's because people started to notice and apparently there's a Subpoena in the works for communications and emails around the time the piece was being released because it's suspected there was conversation between the Biden camp and some people at twitter or this was a deliberate attempt inside the company to push for Biden


mvpu2vzwigt51.png
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
I mean...Twitter just got hacked a couple months back with those stupid Bitcoin schemes and OG handles. Emails weren't spilled, but they definitely got access to internal data and admin tools, not to mention access to some pretty big verified Twitter accounts. So I don't think the take the subject of hacked data very lightly.

In any case, I disagree with you -- the fact that they rolled this back within about 24 hours, and the amount of heat they got (not just from the GOP but journalists and folks on the left) tells me they know they fucked this up and made *themselves* the story.
I just think they caved under pressure and in the long term will likely establish a harder line policy on this as this become more of an issue.
 

Exley97

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
91
95
23
Country
United States
I just think they caved under pressure and in the long term will likely establish a harder line policy on this as this become more of an issue.
I mean, maybe? I suppose anything is possible. For example, I never, EVER, thought a company -- even one run by Jack Dorsey -- that had stumbled and misfired with content moderation in the past would be so colossally fucking stupid as to unnecessarily wade into a national political story like this and then create an entirely new shitstorm. But there you have it.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,097
1,920
118
Country
USA
I mean, maybe? I suppose anything is possible. For example, I never, EVER, thought a company -- even one run by Jack Dorsey -- that had stumbled and misfired with content moderation in the past would be so colossally fucking stupid as to unnecessarily wade into a national political story like this and then create an entirely new shitstorm. But there you have it.
Given that Zucc is at least partially responsible for various crimes against humanity, this is hardly a new low. It’s just a low that is visible to an American audience.
 

Tireseas

Plaguegirl
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
262
116
48
Seattle
Country
United States
Gender
Trans Woman
Maybe handing all this power and influence to irresponsible Silicon Valley conglomerates is bad and has already been the cause of several small ethnic cleansings.
The answer to this is "yes, but this is kind of the opposite situation that created that." A lot of those genocides and the worst tends in social media have been due to lack of moderation or restraint (notably by facebook), not excessive restraint. Given the story in question is a known attempt at espionage and election meddling within the US, it s actually far more reasonable to throttle publications trying to publish it than giving them a pass, as once it is in the social media platform, bots operated by foreign intelligence operatives then spread it to as many people as possible to artificially hype the story.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,097
1,920
118
Country
USA
The answer to this is "yes, but this is kind of the opposite situation that created that." A lot of those genocides and the worst tends in social media have been due to lack of moderation or restraint (notably by facebook), not excessive restraint. Given the story in question is a known attempt at espionage and election meddling within the US, it s actually far more reasonable to throttle publications trying to publish it than giving them a pass, as once it is in the social media platform, bots operated by foreign intelligence operatives then spread it to as many people as possible to artificially hype the story.
Hmm, so what you’re saying is that regardless of the moral inclinations of the self-absorbed Silicon Valley CEOs, they will in fact fuck up royally and cause arbitrary harm in their absurd pursuits of profits and various models of Utilitarian justice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,969
692
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Maybe handing all this power and influence to irresponsible Silicon Valley conglomerates is bad and has already been the cause of several small ethnic cleansings.
But handing that power to the government would be worse!... Is what I would say if I was Libertarian.

I kinda of get it... but the market being in control either leads to stupendous lies that leads to plenty of deaths or crackdowns that are slightly? better.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,097
1,920
118
Country
USA
But handing that power to the government would be worse!... Is what I would say if I was Libertarian.

I kinda of get it... but the market being in control either leads to stupendous lies that leads to plenty of deaths or crackdowns that are slightly? better.
No, the solution is to democratize social media, if such a thing must exist, or destroy it. Such a pervasive, powerful entity cannot be allowed to exist for the sake of profit alone or as an element of the state. In either case it rapidly becomes a neo-colonialist project and does mountains of harm to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Tireseas

Plaguegirl
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
262
116
48
Seattle
Country
United States
Gender
Trans Woman
Hmm, so what you’re saying is that regardless of the moral inclinations of the self-absorbed Silicon Valley CEOs, they will in fact fuck up royally and cause arbitrary harm in their absurd pursuits of profits and various models of Utilitarian justice?
You don't even need to be that, you just need an ideology that says "lies are okay if its furtherance of my ideological goals" (which is also common among often-libertarian social media CEOs). That's been the biggest problem with social media: Truth and lies are given the same weight in terms of engagement. You could turn facebook and twitter into non-profit utilities and if you don't fix that fundamental problem of the algorithm, then you still get a sea of lies and disinformation masquerading as truth. Attempts to try to control this through modifying the algorithms has only exacerbated the sitaution.

And that algorithm can be as simple as "what your friends/subscribed channels share in the order they share it." You can create a hundred bots and engage each in a way that attracts followers, and then use those bots to pass along fake/skewed stories (which often rely on emotion-baiting headlines that cater to the follower's existing preferences, of which the original article in the OP is an excellent example of), which are then shared from person to person, for whom only a small fraction needs to share it to further spread.

Social media is not the site of the problem nor is it's private ownership the problem. Social media itself is the problem, because it inherently creates structures that allow for the rapid dissemination of misinformation. Any approach that does not throttle or stop content is going to create this ecosystem. For an early example, the Centre for Research on Globalization was supposed to be a leftist anti-establishment website to post articles from anti-war and anti-capitalist academia in 2001. Within only a few years, because there was no real editorial control over its content, it because a means for right-wing fascists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas, particularly giving the ideas credence in leftist circles. Most social media operates on a similar approach except on steroids.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,097
1,920
118
Country
USA
You don't even need to be that, you just need an ideology that says "lies are okay if its furtherance of my ideological goals" (which is also common among often-libertarian social media CEOs). That's been the biggest problem with social media: Truth and lies are given the same weight in terms of engagement. You could turn facebook and twitter into non-profit utilities and if you don't fix that fundamental problem of the algorithm, then you still get a sea of lies and disinformation masquerading as truth. Attempts to try to control this through modifying the algorithms has only exacerbated the sitaution.

And that algorithm can be as simple as "what your friends/subscribed channels share in the order they share it." You can create a hundred bots and engage each in a way that attracts followers, and then use those bots to pass along fake/skewed stories (which often rely on emotion-baiting headlines that cater to the follower's existing preferences, of which the original article in the OP is an excellent example of), which are then shared from person to person, for whom only a small fraction needs to share it to further spread.

Social media is not the site of the problem nor is it's private ownership the problem. Social media itself is the problem, because it inherently creates structures that allow for the rapid dissemination of misinformation. Any approach that does not throttle or stop content is going to create this ecosystem. For an early example, the Centre for Research on Globalization was supposed to be a leftist anti-establishment website to post articles from anti-war and anti-capitalist academia in 2001. Within only a few years, because there was no real editorial control over its content, it because a means for right-wing fascists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas, particularly giving the ideas credence in leftist circles. Most social media operates on a similar approach except on steroids.
You may find this surprising but I absolutely agree with you, though I would add the stipulation that without the reach and intentional addictiveness (the union of these two ideas is covering a lot of ground and I’m willing to explain further if asked) of social media this wouldn’t be a problem.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
1,408
127
68
Country
United Kingdom
But handing that power to the government would be worse!... Is what I would say if I was Libertarian.

I kinda of get it... but the market being in control either leads to stupendous lies that leads to plenty of deaths or crackdowns that are slightly? better.
I'm pretty sure you can manage information and sources to make it so "The Bleach Cult" (MMS) and others don't get to peddle their BS while also allowing news sources. Hell just adjust the algorithms to show related posts from others disputing stuff that's truly up in the air. What's the point in twitter verified tags if twitter doesn't make use of knowing said people are who they say they are?

You don't even need to be that, you just need an ideology that says "lies are okay if its furtherance of my ideological goals" (which is also common among often-libertarian social media CEOs). That's been the biggest problem with social media: Truth and lies are given the same weight in terms of engagement. You could turn facebook and twitter into non-profit utilities and if you don't fix that fundamental problem of the algorithm, then you still get a sea of lies and disinformation masquerading as truth. Attempts to try to control this through modifying the algorithms has only exacerbated the sitaution.

And that algorithm can be as simple as "what your friends/subscribed channels share in the order they share it." You can create a hundred bots and engage each in a way that attracts followers, and then use those bots to pass along fake/skewed stories (which often rely on emotion-baiting headlines that cater to the follower's existing preferences, of which the original article in the OP is an excellent example of), which are then shared from person to person, for whom only a small fraction needs to share it to further spread.

Social media is not the site of the problem nor is it's private ownership the problem. Social media itself is the problem, because it inherently creates structures that allow for the rapid dissemination of misinformation. Any approach that does not throttle or stop content is going to create this ecosystem. For an early example, the Centre for Research on Globalization was supposed to be a leftist anti-establishment website to post articles from anti-war and anti-capitalist academia in 2001. Within only a few years, because there was no real editorial control over its content, it because a means for right-wing fascists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas, particularly giving the ideas credence in leftist circles. Most social media operates on a similar approach except on steroids.
However attempts to throttle information leads to the Patriots