Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanwillis | Hacker News Reader

Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.

View on HN

The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation.

You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.

Twitter also blocked the article in DMs, which do show up chronologically rather than through ML.

Nobody's systematically hyper charging emotionally hooking anything. This is or rather, without the artificial suppression, would be completely 100% organically viral.

It shouldn't be up to absolutely obviously partisan corporations to decide which October surprise info dump is misinformation deserving of censorship, and which is the aok rough and tumble of presidential electioneering.

Finally, on the facts, the Steele dossier was far more obviously fraudulent than pictures of hunter smoking a crack pipe in the bathtub...

People would find that unreadable, and someone would come along to replace twitter or facebook with a better experience.

Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter all used to use chronological feeds instead of ones sorted by personalized algorithms. They switched to the latter because they found they could make the platforms more addictive and increase screen time and therefore ad revenue. Doing so also involved them making the algorithms purposefully seek out inflammatory content in many cases to show to users because that keeps the user on the platform longer.

But it's okay, because they own the platform. the people on twitter complaining about it are free to start their own twitter-like platform. It's a great country that allows this.

If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for anything posted to "their" platform, from porn to slander, fake news, and any personal insults.

They are trying to claim control only when it suits them and not when there may be liability. Can't have it both ways.

If they want to take that stance, they should also be held liable for

Why? I pick up a piece of rubbish from the ground, so I'm responsible for everything that anyone litters? It doesn't make any sense.

Twitter isn't claiming they prevent every type of bad on their platform, they're just trying to prevent one type of bad for now

Bad analogy, corporations aren't citizens.

Could you explain why corporations are responsible for everything on their platform if they police it to any extent?

Because policing content based on political opinion is editorializing.

Actually...

Don't compare the whole world to private property. When someone comes along and complains "Hey you censored my post" their response amounts to "We control over what is acceptable on our site". At that point haven't they just taken responsibility for all the content on their site? I suppose they could claim they're going to censor certain things on certain high profile accounts as a policy for [reasons]. Maybe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com