7 ms·

Meta blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier over election interference concerns

74 points by DevScout 2y ago

btown 2y ago
Per the change log in https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/privacy-violations/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/p... the bracketed language below, providing for exceptions for newsworthiness, was removed from Meta’s policy on June 27, 2024. > {Except in limited cases of newsworthiness, }content claimed by the poster or confirmed to come from a hacked source, regardless of whether the affected person is a public figure or a private individual. Coincidentally, this was the exact same day that, per the indictment (pg. 27, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf), Iranian hackers allegedly reached out to try to share the documents in question with campaign officials. It’s exceedingly fast for a leak about the hack to have turned into legal language changes, and it’s unlikely the events were directly related, unless there’s more to the story. But this is also in the context of Meta’s shutdown of other transparency tools: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Meta%20crowdtangle&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... In isolation, it’s perhaps good that Meta is not setting itself as an arbiter of newsworthiness, if the rule is applied evenly and equally to future hacks of various parties. But the rule is too new, even setting aside coincidences, to know if it will be.
pyuser583 2y ago
I’m not thrilled corporations are so willing to engage in a coverup. Democracy is vulnerable to manipulation. But that’s an essential vulnerability. In the end, it’s the citizenry which is responsible for sober decision making. I understand the impulse to keep “irrelevant” or “manipulative” information away from decision makers, but this impulse is only appropriate when the decision makers are perfunctory. Is that where we are? I don’t think so.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Fortunately Enron Musk is here to defend free speech.
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  So what information have you read in the dossier that has helped you with your sober decision making?
  - schiffern 2y ago
    For one, staunchly opposing corn subsidies isn't too popular with Iowa voters. I see why he wrote under a pseudonym. http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsidy-debate http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsid...
moneycantbuy 2y ago
link to pdf of dossier here https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-4918-935b-95701be97310.pdf https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-49...
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies. It feels like they pick and choose when to enforce them, often times seemingly in line with their employees’ or leaders’ biases. For example what constitutes a ‘hacked’ item? The JD Vance dossier? Biden’s daughter’s journal? Trump’s tax returns? Hunter Biden’s laptop? Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks? Why are some of these given a pass and others censored? I don’t care for the completely subjective claim of “newsworthiness”, which is clearly a shameless excuse for biased application of policies. Stepping back - the degree to which suppression of information has been normalized is disturbing. We’re seeing this all over the world today. Brazil with secret censorship of social media content and users. The EU with DSA. Australia with the recently proposed misinformation bill and fines for social media companies. Canada with various censorship measures. The US with government agencies aggressively pressuring private companies to perform censorship on their behalf. And of course private companies acting in near perfect coordination to shut down information sources. The most recent example of that is probably the ban of RT (Russian state controlled media). Individuals should be allowed to communicate freely, access information freely, and decide for themselves what to make of that information. They should be able to decide what is factual. They don’t need protection, and the claims that they should be censored for their won good is at worst dystopian and at best a way to keep people from seeing information that undermines those in power. We need a massive revival of free speech values, globally.
- voxic11 2y ago
  Well you will be happy to hear that Facebook scrapped their newsworthiness exception just in time for this.
- NullPrefix 2y ago
  >I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies But they are completely consistent. If something helps one particular party/ideology - it's allowed and promoted, if it helps the other side - it's banned. Simple as
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Canada 2y ago
If it's in the public interest, and it's true, then it's news and should be published regardless of who came up with it or their possible motives are for doing so. The PDF link posted by moneycantbuy in this thread appears to be appropriately redacted, hiding personal information which isn't newsworthy such as his social security number and home address.. but even then, I just tried Googling "JD Vance home" and I get tons of results showing his home. I'm sure anyone could go to the Hamilton County records office and obtain the redacted property records. Basically, this all looks like public information. There's no good reason for any platform to censor this, unless a version containing the unredacted SSN is floating around.. I can see reason in disallowing that version, if it exists.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > If it's in the public interest What's in this dossier that's in the public interest?
- fleabagmange 2y ago
  On the other hand this type of censorship occurred in favor of the Biden candidacy in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. What’s fair is fair, if they censor one set of controversial findings they ought censor the other.
  - Canada 2y ago
    I think the censorship of this JD Vance document is positive for the Harris campaign. The actual document is run-of-the-mill opposition research, but when some people unfamiliar with the contents hear about it being censored they will assume it's as scandalous as Hunter Biden's laptop.
  - Larrikin 2y ago
    Which office was Hunter Biden running for last cycle?
    - djohnston 2y ago
      That’s hardly a reasonable retort. The contents implicated Hunter Biden being used as a pay-to-play doorway to his father, who was running last cycle. Using a middle man doesn’t make it less corrupt.
rpgbr 2y ago
Congrats to Mark “I don’t do politics anymore” Zuckerberg
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related: X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662702 Twitter banned me after publishing the JD Vance Dossier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663051
noworriesnate 2y ago
This will likely increase engagement on Facebook, so it's just good business for them. There'll be more vicious social media "wars," more vicious comments, more toxicity. And while everyone is mad at each other, they'll be seeing ads.
bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Sharing facts about Republicans is elections interference in the same way that reality has a liberal bias.
fwungy 2y ago
Who would collect such a dossier? Who would want such a thing exposed? How many Trump voters care about the details of JD Vance enough to change their vote (zero)? Why has Zuck publicly shifted from strong anti-Trump positioning to neutral or mildly pro-Trump? The Razor only works when you use it.

74 points by DevScout 2y ago

Per the change log in https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/privacy-violations/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/p... the bracketed language below, providing for exceptions for newsworthiness, was removed from Meta’s policy on June 27, 2024. > {Except in limited cases of newsworthiness, }content claimed by the poster or confirmed to come from a hacked source, regardless of whether the affected person is a public figure or a private individual. Coincidentally, this was the exact same day that, per the indictment (pg. 27, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf), Iranian hackers allegedly reached out to try to share the documents in question with campaign officials. It’s exceedingly fast for a leak about the hack to have turned into legal language changes, and it’s unlikely the events were directly related, unless there’s more to the story. But this is also in the context of Meta’s shutdown of other transparency tools: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Meta%20crowdtangle&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... In isolation, it’s perhaps good that Meta is not setting itself as an arbiter of newsworthiness, if the rule is applied evenly and equally to future hacks of various parties. But the rule is too new, even setting aside coincidences, to know if it will be.

pyuser583 2y ago

I’m not thrilled corporations are so willing to engage in a coverup. Democracy is vulnerable to manipulation. But that’s an essential vulnerability. In the end, it’s the citizenry which is responsible for sober decision making. I understand the impulse to keep “irrelevant” or “manipulative” information away from decision makers, but this impulse is only appropriate when the decision makers are perfunctory. Is that where we are? I don’t think so.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Fortunately Enron Musk is here to defend free speech.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
So what information have you read in the dossier that has helped you with your sober decision making?
- schiffern 2y ago
  For one, staunchly opposing corn subsidies isn't too popular with Iowa voters. I see why he wrote under a pseudonym. http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsidy-debate http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsid...

moneycantbuy 2y ago

link to pdf of dossier here https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-4918-935b-95701be97310.pdf https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-49...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies. It feels like they pick and choose when to enforce them, often times seemingly in line with their employees’ or leaders’ biases. For example what constitutes a ‘hacked’ item? The JD Vance dossier? Biden’s daughter’s journal? Trump’s tax returns? Hunter Biden’s laptop? Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks? Why are some of these given a pass and others censored? I don’t care for the completely subjective claim of “newsworthiness”, which is clearly a shameless excuse for biased application of policies. Stepping back - the degree to which suppression of information has been normalized is disturbing. We’re seeing this all over the world today. Brazil with secret censorship of social media content and users. The EU with DSA. Australia with the recently proposed misinformation bill and fines for social media companies. Canada with various censorship measures. The US with government agencies aggressively pressuring private companies to perform censorship on their behalf. And of course private companies acting in near perfect coordination to shut down information sources. The most recent example of that is probably the ban of RT (Russian state controlled media). Individuals should be allowed to communicate freely, access information freely, and decide for themselves what to make of that information. They should be able to decide what is factual. They don’t need protection, and the claims that they should be censored for their won good is at worst dystopian and at best a way to keep people from seeing information that undermines those in power. We need a massive revival of free speech values, globally.

voxic11 2y ago
Well you will be happy to hear that Facebook scrapped their newsworthiness exception just in time for this.
NullPrefix 2y ago
>I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies But they are completely consistent. If something helps one particular party/ideology - it's allowed and promoted, if it helps the other side - it's banned. Simple as
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Canada 2y ago

If it's in the public interest, and it's true, then it's news and should be published regardless of who came up with it or their possible motives are for doing so. The PDF link posted by moneycantbuy in this thread appears to be appropriately redacted, hiding personal information which isn't newsworthy such as his social security number and home address.. but even then, I just tried Googling "JD Vance home" and I get tons of results showing his home. I'm sure anyone could go to the Hamilton County records office and obtain the redacted property records. Basically, this all looks like public information. There's no good reason for any platform to censor this, unless a version containing the unredacted SSN is floating around.. I can see reason in disallowing that version, if it exists.

leereeves 2y ago
> If it's in the public interest What's in this dossier that's in the public interest?
fleabagmange 2y ago
On the other hand this type of censorship occurred in favor of the Biden candidacy in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. What’s fair is fair, if they censor one set of controversial findings they ought censor the other.
- Canada 2y ago
  I think the censorship of this JD Vance document is positive for the Harris campaign. The actual document is run-of-the-mill opposition research, but when some people unfamiliar with the contents hear about it being censored they will assume it's as scandalous as Hunter Biden's laptop.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  Which office was Hunter Biden running for last cycle?
  - djohnston 2y ago
    That’s hardly a reasonable retort. The contents implicated Hunter Biden being used as a pay-to-play doorway to his father, who was running last cycle. Using a middle man doesn’t make it less corrupt.

rpgbr 2y ago

Congrats to Mark “I don’t do politics anymore” Zuckerberg

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related: X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662702 Twitter banned me after publishing the JD Vance Dossier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663051

noworriesnate 2y ago

This will likely increase engagement on Facebook, so it's just good business for them. There'll be more vicious social media "wars," more vicious comments, more toxicity. And while everyone is mad at each other, they'll be seeing ads.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

Sharing facts about Republicans is elections interference in the same way that reality has a liberal bias.

fwungy 2y ago

Who would collect such a dossier? Who would want such a thing exposed? How many Trump voters care about the details of JD Vance enough to change their vote (zero)? Why has Zuck publicly shifted from strong anti-Trump positioning to neutral or mildly pro-Trump? The Razor only works when you use it.