6 ms·

What was the content of the "handled" tweets, though? I think that matters a lot. For example, the RealJamesWood tweet (from [0]) seems to be a leaked nude of H

What was the content of the "handled" tweets, though? I think that matters a lot. For example, the RealJamesWood tweet (from [0]) seems to be a leaked nude of Hunter; it was most likely (safe to say) posted non-consensually, and I don't really see a big difference between that kind of tweet and revenge porn. Having "stuff they dislike" removed would be one thing, but using the direct line at Twitter for reporting explicit ToS violations isn't a big deal. [0] https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828601268469760

fzeroracer 4y ago
Not just that, but revenge porn is literally illegal in the state of California, where Twitter is HQ'd. I'm getting increasingly annoyed by people pointing to those removed tweets as a smoking gun while being completely unaware that we know the contents of said tweet and said tweets can easily be interpreted as violating Twitter's ToS at minimum and actively violating California law at worst.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  The case in point was the removal and censorship of the NY Post's story on the laptop, which was incredibly relevant to the Presidential election. It revealed Hunter as a degenerate crackhead, and an unqualified man-child who benefited directly from his father's position as Vice President to get a powerful, paid position on the Burisma Board of Directors, a favor for which he committed "10% to the big guy" (among other positions, Burisma was not the only one). It underscored the corruption of the current U.S. president, who used his power and influence over foreign relations with Ukraine to enrich his own family and himself. The pornographic images, to what extent they were shown in the NY Post, were redacted. The main function they played is in showing that the laptop contents couldn't have been fake.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    All that has been shown is that Hunter was a POS trying to profit from his relationship with his father, who has been investigated and exonerated by the GOP: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-homeland-security-report-on-hunter-biden-and-burisma/3d48468e81b378ee/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-homeland-secur... Just because they want to offer up 10% to the big guy doesn't mean he took it. If he was guilty he should have been prosecuted (and would have been). Would you be willing to say the same about Trump?
  - ytpete 4y ago
    There's an important distinction here. It seems there were some tweets the Biden campaign raised with contacts at Twitter - they contained porn, and were rightly taken down. Then there was a NY Post story blocked by Twitter - that move is much harder to defend, but crucially it seems Twitter took it upon themselves to remove that story, with no evidence presented that the Biden campaign had anything to do with it. A lot of the debate here seems to be conflating those two things.
    - mfost 4y ago
      I question the integrity of the journalist reporting those tweets (Matt Taibbi) at that point I must admit. So many people seem to conflate the requests for review of ToS violating messages with some kind of power the Democrats had to get Twitter to block the story. If the Democrats had that kind of power and it was visible in the info available, no doubt this would be shown upfront. Instead we get pretty loaded (lying?) mentions of "requests from connected actors to delete tweets" when the message clearly mentions tweets to review. In fact the answer "handled" doesn't even imply anything was deleted. Also this so called journalist didn't even try to see what had been deleted in the end to see if it wasn't just blattant ToS violations and worse, material that had really nothing much to do with the campaign in the first place. I fail to see how the right of some tweets of revenge porn to survive a few hours longer because they had to go through the regular queue of moderation was of any import. It's easy to paint a team as having excessive influence on Twitter. Just have your own team post a lot of ToS abusing materials then later on show the stats of deleted tweets to show the "bias"
- killdozer 4y ago
  They're clearly not acting in good faith and you should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    I think there’s a lot more at play than lack of good faith. It’s incredibly tantalizing and comforting to buy into a narrative that the other side is engaged in an unforgivable scandal that will eventually result in your side regaining power or moral superiority. We’re all trapped in an out of control rumor machine just in time for the arrival of AI generated misinformation.
assttoasstmgr 4y ago
Lots of people talking about ToS as if it's applied consistently and without bias. Let's assume that the oft-storied "pee tapes" were real, published by a mainstream news outlet and posted to Twitter. Would those same individuals regurgitating ToS violations agree that should receive the same treatment, or would they have been complicit in spreading it as far and wide as possible?
- roenxi 4y ago
  The situation is clouded by the extreme bias of the employees at Twitter. They seemed to believe they were applying the ToS consistently and fairly despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Someone who can put that up and think of it as a serious interpretation is not working from the same reality as most people. EDIT It is hard to find, here is the link to the reasoning. It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Twitter executives: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    > It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      We could be looking at a classic case of groupthink [0]. I've read a lot of political speeches with half-truths to try and gain an advantage, but the Twitter statement stands out as something that might be their honest take. Someone, probably a couple of someones, with high intelligence and communication ability was in such a state that they interpreted the Tweet as inciting violence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
googlryas 4y ago
That's one tweet. What about the tweet by the spokeswoman suspended for referencing a NY Post article?
- hackernewds 4y ago
  As has been lengthily defended by Twitter, the developing situation was that the material might have been hacked, and the product of an adversarial state government. If that were true in that situation, imagine the implications for Twitter for having amplified it
  - googlryas 4y ago
    That's a very convenient excuse for blocking anything you want unt it is irrelevant. I also like how, now that the provenance of the laptop is not doubted, and hacking and Russia were not involved, people say "it doesn't matter, there was nothing incriminating on the laptop anyway". What a strange OP for Russia to pull off, you'd think they sold forge something juicy if it was their plan.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      The provenance of the laptop and it’s contents, are doubted. That’s the whole point of all of this. Seriously, Rudy Giuliani spent most of 2020 in Ukraine trying to dig up dirt on Biden. He would send his findings to the DoJ, and they were so out there that Barr had to set up a to quarantine the noise he was generating. Then all of a sudden in a classic October surprise, a blind computer repairman finds out what he is in possession of, and instead of calling the FBI he calls none other than Rudy Giuliani. And wouldn’t you know, what he has found is exactly the kind of bullshit Giuliani had been trying to dredge up in Ukraine for a year but couldn’t get past the DoJ. So no, the provenance of this thing is in deep question.

fzeroracer 4y ago

Not just that, but revenge porn is literally illegal in the state of California, where Twitter is HQ'd. I'm getting increasingly annoyed by people pointing to those removed tweets as a smoking gun while being completely unaware that we know the contents of said tweet and said tweets can easily be interpreted as violating Twitter's ToS at minimum and actively violating California law at worst.

chrisco255 4y ago
The case in point was the removal and censorship of the NY Post's story on the laptop, which was incredibly relevant to the Presidential election. It revealed Hunter as a degenerate crackhead, and an unqualified man-child who benefited directly from his father's position as Vice President to get a powerful, paid position on the Burisma Board of Directors, a favor for which he committed "10% to the big guy" (among other positions, Burisma was not the only one). It underscored the corruption of the current U.S. president, who used his power and influence over foreign relations with Ukraine to enrich his own family and himself. The pornographic images, to what extent they were shown in the NY Post, were redacted. The main function they played is in showing that the laptop contents couldn't have been fake.
- pstuart 4y ago
  All that has been shown is that Hunter was a POS trying to profit from his relationship with his father, who has been investigated and exonerated by the GOP: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-homeland-security-report-on-hunter-biden-and-burisma/3d48468e81b378ee/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-homeland-secur... Just because they want to offer up 10% to the big guy doesn't mean he took it. If he was guilty he should have been prosecuted (and would have been). Would you be willing to say the same about Trump?
- ytpete 4y ago
  There's an important distinction here. It seems there were some tweets the Biden campaign raised with contacts at Twitter - they contained porn, and were rightly taken down. Then there was a NY Post story blocked by Twitter - that move is much harder to defend, but crucially it seems Twitter took it upon themselves to remove that story, with no evidence presented that the Biden campaign had anything to do with it. A lot of the debate here seems to be conflating those two things.
  - mfost 4y ago
    I question the integrity of the journalist reporting those tweets (Matt Taibbi) at that point I must admit. So many people seem to conflate the requests for review of ToS violating messages with some kind of power the Democrats had to get Twitter to block the story. If the Democrats had that kind of power and it was visible in the info available, no doubt this would be shown upfront. Instead we get pretty loaded (lying?) mentions of "requests from connected actors to delete tweets" when the message clearly mentions tweets to review. In fact the answer "handled" doesn't even imply anything was deleted. Also this so called journalist didn't even try to see what had been deleted in the end to see if it wasn't just blattant ToS violations and worse, material that had really nothing much to do with the campaign in the first place. I fail to see how the right of some tweets of revenge porn to survive a few hours longer because they had to go through the regular queue of moderation was of any import. It's easy to paint a team as having excessive influence on Twitter. Just have your own team post a lot of ToS abusing materials then later on show the stats of deleted tweets to show the "bias"
killdozer 4y ago
They're clearly not acting in good faith and you should stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
- antiterra 4y ago
  I think there’s a lot more at play than lack of good faith. It’s incredibly tantalizing and comforting to buy into a narrative that the other side is engaged in an unforgivable scandal that will eventually result in your side regaining power or moral superiority. We’re all trapped in an out of control rumor machine just in time for the arrival of AI generated misinformation.

assttoasstmgr 4y ago

Lots of people talking about ToS as if it's applied consistently and without bias. Let's assume that the oft-storied "pee tapes" were real, published by a mainstream news outlet and posted to Twitter. Would those same individuals regurgitating ToS violations agree that should receive the same treatment, or would they have been complicit in spreading it as far and wide as possible?

roenxi 4y ago
The situation is clouded by the extreme bias of the employees at Twitter. They seemed to believe they were applying the ToS consistently and fairly despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Someone who can put that up and think of it as a serious interpretation is not working from the same reality as most people. EDIT It is hard to find, here is the link to the reasoning. It is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Twitter executives: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence. Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    We could be looking at a classic case of groupthink [0]. I've read a lot of political speeches with half-truths to try and gain an advantage, but the Twitter statement stands out as something that might be their honest take. Someone, probably a couple of someones, with high intelligence and communication ability was in such a state that they interpreted the Tweet as inciting violence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

googlryas 4y ago

That's one tweet. What about the tweet by the spokeswoman suspended for referencing a NY Post article?

hackernewds 4y ago
As has been lengthily defended by Twitter, the developing situation was that the material might have been hacked, and the product of an adversarial state government. If that were true in that situation, imagine the implications for Twitter for having amplified it
- googlryas 4y ago
  That's a very convenient excuse for blocking anything you want unt it is irrelevant. I also like how, now that the provenance of the laptop is not doubted, and hacking and Russia were not involved, people say "it doesn't matter, there was nothing incriminating on the laptop anyway". What a strange OP for Russia to pull off, you'd think they sold forge something juicy if it was their plan.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    The provenance of the laptop and it’s contents, are doubted. That’s the whole point of all of this. Seriously, Rudy Giuliani spent most of 2020 in Ukraine trying to dig up dirt on Biden. He would send his findings to the DoJ, and they were so out there that Barr had to set up a to quarantine the noise he was generating. Then all of a sudden in a classic October surprise, a blind computer repairman finds out what he is in possession of, and instead of calling the FBI he calls none other than Rudy Giuliani. And wouldn’t you know, what he has found is exactly the kind of bullshit Giuliani had been trying to dredge up in Ukraine for a year but couldn’t get past the DoJ. So no, the provenance of this thing is in deep question.