Hacker News Reader

> That must explain why numerous right wing media outlets also chose not to cover it (Fox, WSJ, others). No, it's because every other outlet has a standard, which is that they need to be able to independently confirm a story and not shout every random rumor they hear.

The whole laptop story has hearsay from one random technician. There was very little evidence to backup any of it. The files may have been real, but they very well could have stolen by a foreign entity (Russia), and given to this random technician as a way to make it look not stolen. By spreading it, they would have been helping Russia influence our elections, again.

Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right. I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twitter for inventing a totally new policy for censoring this one story. In a case like this, where some journalists believe in a story and others don't, but neither side has won the debate (yet), the story should be published and discussed. That's the policy they take with literally every other news story, including many dubious ones that are later discredited.

I guess I can't prove this part, but I'm pretty sure Twitter would have taken the opposite stance if, say, CNN had found Trump Jr's laptop.

Regarding your claim that the story is not a big deal, you as a voter are entitled to decide that for yourself. However, a majority of likely voters disagree with you. A Rasmussen poll found that 48% of likely voters consider the story "very important" and another 18% consider it "important."[1] Rasmussen is considered a grade-B pollster by FiveThirtyEight, so their data can be trusted.

[1] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...

> In a case like this, where some journalists believe in a story and others don't, but neither side has won the debate (yet), the story should be published and discussed.

No, these are not viable standards. First of all, Greenwald was 100% free to publish and discuss the story. Just not on Twitter. Secondly, the criteria is not "do some journalists believe in a story", but "is there actually evidence that the story is true". Greenwald had no more evidence than anyone else, it just "felt right" to him, and so he believed it. Nobody stopped him from talking about it (nobody seems to be able to stop Greenwald from talking about anything, really). A private corporation decided that it did not want to play a role in this story without more evidence that it may be true. The threshold is not "is there a journalist who believes it (because there more or less always is).

> I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twitter for inventing a totally new policy for censoring this one story.

Given the impact of the "but her emails" on Clinton's presidential run (a story that was actually real, but absurdly (especially in retrospect) framed and overstated), I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to play a role in spreading yet another potentially BS "story" around the time of an election in arguably the world's most powerful nation.

> I guess I can't prove this part, but I'm pretty sure Twitter would have taken the opposite stance if, say, CNN had found Trump Jr's laptop.

No, you can't prove that part, and I'm pretty sure they would not have taken the opposite stance.

> Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right

mind sharing this proof?

> It was not covered at the time because the way it was "released" meant that the claims were unsubstantiated and unsubstaniable.

No, I don’t think so. There are billions of unsubstantiated and unsustainable messages on Twitter. I think this one was censored because of the political impact. It seems weird to argue otherwise.

There are 3 primary alternatives:

1. ban any and all messages that contain unsubstantiated and unverifiable contents

2. ban such messages that may have an outsize impact on society if they are false

3. allow all messages and just deal with the consequences post-facto

The first one is operationally impossible. The last one might seem OK if you're a free speech absolutist, but the cost/benefit analysis doesn't come out well in most people's opinions (that is, the downsides of allowing every invented story designed to distort an election are larger than the benefits of completely uncontrolled use of a private messaging platform). Which leaves #2, ie. precisely what Twitter did.

It’s hard for Twitter to know what is false so #2 is pretty hard. In this case it ended up being true but was many months afterwards until it was verified.

They don't have to know if it is false. They have to know

1. it is unverified 2. if true, would have substantial impact