Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

> Twitter suspended Ms. Greene’s account after she tweeted on Saturday, falsely, about “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” She included a misleading chart that pulled data from a government database of unverified raw data.

Does anyone have a link to the tweet in question? It's interesting that it was labeled the chart as "misleading" as opposed to based on doctored data. It appears being factual is not enough and you could "mislead" depending on how you present it. But "mislead" from what precisely? A policy decision? It relates to the whole shift from "disinformation" to "misinformation", which has a much broader scope.

Either way, I always feel a little weird about a private corporation censoring a democratically elected politician, especially when concerning political speech. I get that its their platform, but its not without political influence. The white house has admitted to be in close contact with all the large social media companies regarding what is 'misinformation', going so far as to flag posts [0]. There's definitely a risk of political interference

[0] https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...

There's always C-SPAN. She hasn't been censored. She's only been denied a company's message amplification product. Goofball isn't a protected class, so Twitter is under no obligation to serve her.

What would government censorship look like to you? If someone criticizes a government policy, and a private platform censors this person after nudging from the state (which isn't in dispute), is that not censorship?

She is the government.

So one set of politicians is nudging a private platform to censor another politician. This is pretty much par for the course, no?

It's not censoring for a private company to refuse service to someone.

I don't agree with government compelling speech for a private company either.

Why is Twitter the speaker when MTG tweets, but Verizon is not the speaker when I call my mom?

Good question. I'd say it has to do with how public the communication in question is, but I'd be interested in other opinions.

Because Verizon isn't broadcasting your conversation to the world.

Your conversation with your mom is private communication, while your tweets are broadcast communications.

You've stated a fact. Why does this fact make Twitter the speaker whose free speech rights take precedence?

It's apples and oranges and therefore are not and should not be regulated in the same way

I think that fact is pertinent, but it may also be helpful to think of the distinction between a publisher and a technology. If I write a book called “Vaccines Kill and Trump is Still President”, it feels fair and correct to me that Random House has the right to pass on publishing it but that nobody could stop me from reading it to someone over the phone or mailing it to someone.

The pragmatic answer is: because the law says so.

The technical answer is: Verizon can't hear what you're saying to your mom, so they don't know/care the content.

The social answer is: ultimately there's no real difference between the two. If you use your Verizon phone to make harassing calls to your mom and she reports those calls to Verizon, or if you do something else that violates your agreement with Verizon, they too have the right to terminate your service:

"We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement or violate our prohibited usage policies..."

Now, because you pay Verizon, and Verizon likes money, they may be more inclined to tolerate certain behavior as long as you pay your bill on time. That's their choice, though.

But when is a private company's refusal of service break the line of editorializing their product?

Would you hold that opinion if someone was declined access to a platform because of their skin color?

No. I do agree that discrimination based on protected characteristics should not be allowed.

There's obviously a conversation to be had on what should be protected.

But if the government is in talks w/ the social media about setting their policy, and they use that policy to ban other politicians, is that not censorship?

If the government leans on Twitter to silence a user, then yes, that would be censorship. There is no evidence this has happened, however; the substack post you referenced is drivel.

The White House admits that they're in regular communication with social media platforms and are flagging problematic posts on facebook. What about that is drivel?

> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.

> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

Just because Twitter has the right to remove content doesn't mean that removing it isn't censorship.

I think this is the tweet that got her suspended:

https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1477663920349499400/...

the complaint seems to be her presentation is misleading. i can understand that. if you give some medical treatment to a large number of people then some of them are going to be harmed by it but the benefits to individuals could still exceed the harm. but if we apply the same kind of logic then i feel twitter's warning text is misleading. it is not the complete picture whether COVID 19 vaccine is considered 'safe' for a person. what is important for an individual when making a decision whether to take the vaccine or not is whether the benefits exceed the costs. a vaccine might be 'safe' but the costs might still exceed the benefits if the risk differential between vaccinated and unvaccinated is low enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com