The problem here is going to be the private company censoring users at the behest of the state. There may be arguments made as to why some feel that is acceptable, but the distinction is important. This is not the same as a private company invoking freedom of association via content standards.
>"MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I would say first, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that we’re in regular touch with social media platforms — just like we’re in regular touch with all of you and your media outlets — about areas where we have concern, information that might be useful, information that may or may not be interesting to your viewers.
You all make decisions, just like the social media platforms make decisions, even though they’re a private-sector company and different, but just as an example.
So we are ma- — regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans seeing — are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
>These documents blow up the big lie that Big Tech censorship is ‘private’ – as the documents show collusion between a whole group of government officials in multiple states to suppress speech about election controversies.
>The document shows that California state officials contacted YouTube directly to remove the video on September 24, 2020, and that YouTube seemed to respond by deleting the video on September 27, 2020
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ca-big-tech-biden-cen...
Your explanation of freedom of speech is very insufficient, even for non-US standards. Of course a company can do what it wants for that matter in a legal sense.
You are not concerned that the two parties in your country have influence on the topics shared on social media? To me this is the most essential part here. Yes, pundits made it about the laptop story. They are not the brightest star in the sky and will never amount to much. If you don't understand why such a story is not important in the grand scheme of things, there is little hope for you ever grasping anything complex. I doubt the republican media needs any more criticism here. But this wasn't restricted to them.
For the laptop story specifically there is even reason to censor it in my opinion. Why should people be interested here in the first place? Even the family of a president deserves privacy. Still there was collusion between officials and Twitter and you should expect this to be the case for most media publications aside from a handful with more integrity.
Suspect? It's public fact. And of course that should erode trust. No citizen should trust their government 100%. That's just sensible. But have they overstepped any sensible line here? Not that I can see, not that most people can see. General consensus is that this is a nothing burger.
My country? Nope. This is media theatre from another country.
Of course governments should have influence on topics shared on social media. Child pornography is one topic they should have influence over for starters. Hacked materials. Revenge porn. Those last 2 are the ones that are important here specifically. Not that the White House actually made any kind of request to influence Hunter's hacked dick pics on Twitter - Twitter did this all by themselves, fearing legal repercussions. No government body, or political party, ovestepped any line - AND your entire premise is terrible. Of course government should influence these topics.
Good you think privacy is important.
There was no collusion. The Twitter officials literally say this in their thread. Twitter made the decision by themselves.
Do you think these interventions were because of child pornography? To answer with another suggestive question, you don't believe that yourself, do you? And another one that I already stated, don't you have a problem with political parties curating content on social media? It isn't relevant if that happened or not, just for the sake of the general argument. You probably wouldn't like that, would you?
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
Here’s some counter-evidence: I just did an HN search and found this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556
Seems like it got plenty of attention. If you think a different take on the issue deserves attention, try submitting it. Plenty of stories randomly fail to get traction (there are several analyses of this) so you would really need to show a significant sample size of these stories getting zero traction before you could imply they are being purposefully buried.
The Twitter Files - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838556 - Dec 2022 (1544 comments)
The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33915734 - Dec 2022 (412 comments)
The idea that Twitter and other sites are "the digital public square" is the unfortunate result of CEOs overselling their businesses. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, etc are entertainment media first and foremost. They are not a suitable replacement for educational or public institutions, and people need to stop treating them as such.
Even when the /newest page was flooded with them and people were writing posts like
"Tell HN: We're sick and tired of hearing about Twitter"
The whole point of HN is it is doesn't traffic in outrage. I might post something about political science but I won't post anything about politics. Once in a while you can stoke some outrage about how Google killed your favorite product or how you got bullied in elementary school but it is not like Twitter which is filled with pithy slogans and people complaining that they are being censored when all they are trying to do is assert their membership in a tribe.
(Somebody should start a site called "me too" where there is no censorship because you can assert your membership in your tribe by clicking the "me too" button. What's valuable about speech, priceless even, is people having the opportunity to really think about something and say something original. If people are "free" to spout nonsense through a megaphone there's not a lot of value in that.)
Anyway when I hear people complain about censorship I can't help but think about this song:
Video unavailable
This video is not available
There's obviously been a lot of news - everyone is probably sick to death of it, but this is a site where people express their interest based on voting. HN readers can just not vote on Twitter stuff if it's no longer interesting.
Flagging, on the other hand, doesn't feel like the correct approach... If people disagree with the Ask HN question here (and I can see why as it's possibly a bit hyperbolic) I think the correct action is to either ignore it, or provide comments with counterarguments.
To me, flagging this seems to lend credence to the point OP is actually trying to make (regardless of whether you agree with the way the point is being made...)
Anything resting upon premises which contradict HN's political norms is therefore 'political'.
Flamewars usually ensue.
Therefore, before discussing a topic, be sure that the political premises are agreeable to the status quo.
This scandal does not pass the above test.
It isn't, and it doesn't, and the breathless hyperbole with which you describe it illustrates why it needs to be buried. "The Twitter Files" is clearly just this year's "Hunter Biden's Laptop" which was that year's "DNC Leaks prove treason" which was that year's Pizzagate. There's nothing of intellectual or technical interest here, it's just the American right throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks. It's no coincidence this story "broke" so soon after a certain orange bad man announced his candidacy.
I thought they were over him after the brilliant constitution comments.
Imagine if Trump asked Twitter to remove discussions about a "pee tape." The request alone would have been months of major media miasma, had it been granted they'd have called for bloodshed.