[mikkergp]

But your point is the point as to why it’s not hubris! they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies. This I think is why the censorship story is such a non issue, because Twitter is not an exclusive source of this information.

[lapcat]

> they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies.

Well, it seems more like they were trying to apply their moderation policies to another website, which isn't the same as applying their moderation policies to their own website.

Anyway, moderation is censorship. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's what it is.

[jpgvm]

Did they? Where did they try to get NY Post to take the original article down?

[lapcat]

> Where did they try to get NY Post to take the original article down?

Your reply is based on a mistaken assumption.

[jpgvm]

Can you clarify what you mean about them attempting to apply their moderation policies to another website then? The rest of the context makes this appear as if you mean the NY Post...

[lapcat]

Yes, I do mean the NY Post.

The content in question was not hosted on Twitter, it was hosted on the NY Post website. Twitter moderates the content hosted on Twitter, the NY Post moderates the content hosted by the NY Post. But when Twitter censored links to the NY Post, Twitter was attempting to apply its own moderation policy to content hosted outside of Twitter.

Again, I'm not claiming that blocking links is inherently bad. For example, it may be reasonable to block links to malware, phishing, misleading URL shorteners, etc. I'm just saying that this is censorship. "Moderation" is a euphemism for censorship.

[jpgvm]

So they didn't try remove it from NY Post... they just removed links to NY Post...

That isn't moderating the NY Post or attempting to extend their moderation policies beyond the border of their own systems.

[dmitrygr]

Did you read the OP? Even their CEO questioned of this was proper application of the policy. Their top legal dude admitted that they had been wrong but advised to stay the course. It was NEVER about the policy, except as a justification. They literally admit so multiple times...

[mikkergp]

Yes exactly! They asked all the right questions then realized they didn’t have justification and it was a mistaken, apologize and I hope learned from the incident. And will react faster in the future. But this is the point. They made a mistake, fine but no one said “hey, I hate Trump, maybe we should keep this down”

Never make moderation mistakes can’t be the standard.

[StanislavPetrov]

When moderation policies (or laws) are subjectively and arbitrarily enforced based on the identity of the party being persecuted, it ceases to be a policy and is simply another tool used to bludgeon those who are disfavored. It was a big story in September of 2020 when the NYT published Trump's hacked/leaked tax returns - a story that did not receive the Hunter Biden treatment, but was amplified all across Twitter. How can anyone who is even reasonably impartial and reasonably intelligent argue that Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing moderation policies in the Hunter Biden situation when it took the polar opposite stance when it came to Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...

Indeed, numerous articles written explicitly from hacked sources (unlike the Biden laptop, which was only [faslely] rumored to be "hacked") were published and advertised on Twitter. These articles were never suppressed. How can it be argued Twitter was merely neutrally enforcing their policy when the only articles suppressed were clearly done to benefit their preferred political partisans?

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1598855600083177472

Personally I am (and have never been) neither a Republican or a Trump supporter, but what I (and many other like me) am is someone who supports free speech, open discourse and rational thinking. This is only part 1 of the "Twitter files", with many more revelations to come, and it is already incredibly damning. It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election. The ability of people to willfully delude themselves is astounding.

[mikkergp]

>It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election.

You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion, and who is saying this wouldnt be a problem? I al saying this didn’t happen, not it wouldn’t be a problemZ

[StanislavPetrov]

>You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion

A bipartisan group of 50 CIA agents and various spooks released a letter falsely labeling the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" at the exact same time the story was being censored by Facebook and Twitter at the behest of the Biden campaign. It is unfortunate that so many are willing (and able) to willfully delude themselves into denying reality.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-...

>Hang them all, put social media in the hands of the government, ban moderation?

If Twitter had unilaterally decided to act as political partisans without direction from political campaigns, elected officials and intelligence agencies it would be an entirely different issue - this isn't the case as clearly illustrated by part one of the Taibbi series. I have little doubt when it comes to the Covid chapter you will see even more direct censorship coordination between Twitter and government officials, which will also be downplayed (if not supported) by those who believe it was "good" or "necessary". The fact is that The Constitution is the foundational document of our country. It isn't some sort of optional set of guidelines that can be ignored when inconvenient. The 1st Amendment is the most important part of this foundational document, the bedrock of a free society. All of our elected leaders, including the president, swear an oath of office to protect and uphold The Constitution. The legitimate authority of the government is derived from The Constitution. A government acting outside of the Constitution is not a legitimate government.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[mikkergp]

> It is unfortunate that so many are willing (and able) to willfully delude themselves into denying reality.

Deny reality of what?

I don’t really understand the rest of your post, I guess your alleging they government violated the first amendment. Ok, what’s the next steps then?