A consistent content moderation policy would accept reports of problematic content regardless of the source of the report.
To me, the bigger issue is the white glove treatment, and the appearance of preferential moderation.
But I think that’s where political realities come into play. I don’t doubt that these companies feel the need to make lawmakers feel heard or risk legislation/regulation that will harm the platforms.
I think this is touching on something much bigger, in that these kinds of government/company relationships are everywhere, and have been for decades.
The difference with the Twitter situation is one of public visibility and direct impact on individuals trying to do something as seemingly innocuous as post and share links on social media.
Which is absolutely not to excuse the behavior. If anything, I hope this wakes up more average Americans to the kinds of quid pro quo and shady handshake deals that have been going on forever.
When Twitter tried to just apply consistent content moderation policies and right-wing politicians ended up being banned for repeated violations of Twitter ToS, there was a ton of outrage, among much of the exact same group of people that are talking about how bad it is that politicians appear to have a direct line of communication with Twitter policy teams.
And like virtually every system on the planet, there are false negatives. So external groups might send over things and say "hey, I think you missed this."
That’s alright, but when the tweet doesn’t actually violate the ToS, it’s a true negative that requires no intervention by interested political parties.
Sure. Are any of the linked cases tweets that didn't actually violate the ToS? Is there any evidence that twitter took down tweets without reviewing them further?
This was not a government request. No one who asked Twitter to remove these tweets on behalf of Biden was in government. Biden was not in government at the time.
How many times do we see someone turning to HN as a side channel into big tech because the official channels aren’t as responsive? It’s normal and expected for people to use any methods available in their wider social network to achieve an objective. If there’s no law against it (as there isn’t here) then what’s the problem?
To me, the bigger issue is the white glove treatment, and the appearance of preferential moderation.
But I think that’s where political realities come into play. I don’t doubt that these companies feel the need to make lawmakers feel heard or risk legislation/regulation that will harm the platforms.
I think this is touching on something much bigger, in that these kinds of government/company relationships are everywhere, and have been for decades.
The difference with the Twitter situation is one of public visibility and direct impact on individuals trying to do something as seemingly innocuous as post and share links on social media.
Which is absolutely not to excuse the behavior. If anything, I hope this wakes up more average Americans to the kinds of quid pro quo and shady handshake deals that have been going on forever.