[KrishnaShripad]

> Meta meddling in politics and turning a blind eye to those who used the platform to peddle misinformation isn't news.

But Twitter doing the same is perfectly fine right? I see the hypocrisy in HN when it comes to how it treats Meta vs how it treats Twitter.

[koshergweilo]

> I see the hypocrisy in HN when it comes to how it treats Meta vs how it treats Twitter

Man HN is the most Twitter hating group I've ever interacted with. I don't think I've ever seen a thread mentioning Twitter where people _don't_ complain about Twitter's moderation

[webartisan]

I don’t get this Whataboutery? The news story and the article is about Meta - why bring Twitter or any other media into discussion, unless you want to distract from the topic at hand.

[KrishnaShripad]

Because I have seen this bias on HN. I feel the need to call it out. Why is it bothering you? Can't I have my opinion? Or should I be forced to conform to everyone's opinion here? I'm no sheep. I have my own independent thinking and I base my opinions on that. I am infact against Big Tech censorship as a whole. What I find amusing is that Big Tech on HN gets preferential treatment based on which side of the political aisle one is on (as the Company you support or are against depends on the Company's overarching political leaning).

[webartisan]

Well, it is an object fact though — isn't it? Twitter is an order of magnitude smaller than Meta, and Facebook / Meta / Zuckerberg have been fined and trialled an order of magnitude more times than twitter for its deeds. Whistleblowers have presented an order of magnitude more documentation and proof for Facebook's shady practices. It is only fair that it is discussed an order of magnitude more times than Twitter.

Just because you want the two to be "equally bad" doesn't make it so, and bringing up Y when the topic is X in this case is the textbook definition of whataboutery.