Which publication do you think has better journalistic integrity? NY Post or NY Times?
Do you think those screenshots of emails were well vetted given the simplicity of verifying email header info if it had been published?
Do you think those screenshots of emails were well vetted given the simplicity of verifying email header info if it had been published?
After the 1619 Project, I'm not even sure anymore.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-...
Yes I am aware. Bret Stephens was hired to write headlines like this, to appeal to the "fair and balanced" crowd (which will always fail, nothing will ever be enough).
I don’t see a whole lot of difference here.
Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with, but it's dishonest how they portray themselves as being non-partizan.
That's right. But when they do that, can they claim that they are a 'platform' and not a 'publisher' ?
If paulX is a for-profit-business can he claim that his business a non profit and apply tax code designed for non-profit charities ?
As far as I know, literally nothing about the story has been verified.
For all you know the Post validated the content itself as real.
Think about how well it works for a scenario like this. Using real videos to legitimize fake emails is an easy win, especially if you don't release either. No on can disprove the legitimacy of the emails and if Biden says they're total BS you release the real videos to add more legitimacy and give the whole thing another news cycle. Then you claim victory and go silent.
Should that matter if the criteria for Twitter is whether something contains hacked/leaked materials or PII? Big news often contain the former and most articles contain the latter. Twitter would lose a lot of journalists if they went down that route. Might be good for the sanity of the users though.
So yeah. A publication that makes a significant effort to vet their source and the story deserves the benefit of the doubt while a publication that acts as a click-bait tabloid without any kind of investigative effort doesn't.
That said, I think Twitter is grasping a bit and trying to use a policy that's right or wrong when the reality is more subjective.
The other thing I don't understand is how revisiting section 230 of the DMCA and turning Twitter into a publisher is going to improve things. If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? They're looking for a whipping boy IMO.
I kind of understand why they don't, because that would likely be hard to quantify and you'd have to decide what basket a company goes into, which would act as a gate keeper (if you don't have a good track record, or none at all, you can't publish visibly) and they'd likely have to constantly monitor for changes. Not something that scales well or can be automated, and definitely something where they'd get roasted each time the NYT commits a faux pas.
> If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher?
True. In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.
> In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.
That one flip-flops in my head all the time. Maybe the idea of reduced liability or a higher bar for proving libel / slander in a civil suit against a publisher might be an option, but with _some_ exposure to liability. There has to be a threshold where high quality publishers could bear the costs of honest mistakes, but bad actors would be overwhelmed financially.