Twitter Refuses To Unlock NYPost Account Unless Paper Deletes Tweets About Hunter Biden

[gam197]

gam197:

Dovekin:

The story is very much relevant to the election, and should be investigated. Giuliani should give the hard drive to CIA or NSA for analysis and authentication.

My impression was that iit was the FBI who has all 3 computers and has had them for over 8 months, the ones that were given to the repair shop and Guliani has a copy of one hardrive.

Are you saying that Guiliani kept one hard drive?

Nope.

I am making a claim about the relevance of the Ukraine/Biden story to Trump’s impeachment.

Anything I say about Biden’s alleged laptop could be factually wrong since I have not followed that story closely.

The impeachment is over. The reason for the impeachment was not well-founded and it went nowhere.

The new story is that Twitter has chosen to lock the New York Post account over a story that they did on Hunter Biden and these three laptops that were given to the FBI over 8 months ago.

The emails in those laptops are important because did Joe Biden get his son a job.? Joe Biden states he knew nothing about his son’s job, that they did not even discuss his son’s business dealing.

The emails on Hunter Biden’s laptops seem to contradict that and if the New York Post wants to post a story so be it. Let the Biden’s sue if they feel that what the Post is writing about is false.

That is why we have the courts. We can see by the Gawker story on Hulk Hogan that the courts work. He sued and the cost to Gawker was so much that t went out of business.

We can see it again with the story on Nick Sandman. He has sued about 4 news outlets and won.

Newspapers cannot just slander people; there are repercussions for doing so.

 

[Dovekin]

I am not the one who brought up the impeachment. I was simply correcting a remark about it.

I do agree that Hunter Biden should sue the NY POST. if that is what you are saying. That might establish the real provenance of the laptop in question, his rights to privacy, etc.

And Twitter should certainly be careful about publishing the info, given the precedents like Gawker.

 

[gam197]

I do agree that Hunter Biden should sue the NY POST. if that is what you are saying. That might establish the real provenance of the laptop in question, his rights to privacy, etc.

And Twitter should certainly be careful about publishing the info, given the precedents like Gawker.

Twitter is not a judge and jury on what is correct to publish and what is not. The New York: Post feels they have the facts and is publishing the story. Hunter Biden should sue if he feels what the Post has printed in false.

The New York Post will get sued. Twitter did not get sued by Nick Sandman or by Hulk Hogan.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The New York Post will get sued. Twitter did not get sued by Nick Sandman or by Hulk Hogan.

No, they face different liabilities. In the last few years Twitter et al have received statements from members of the government saying that if they are not able to get the spread of misinformation under control, that regulators will step in to do it.

 

[gam197]

No, they face different liabilities. In the last few years Twitter et al have received statements from members of the government saying that if they are not able to get the spread of misinformation under control, that regulators will step in to do it.

So has Facebook but these are nothing but scare tactics and nothing has been done.

Hulk Hogan sued Gawker. Nick Sandman sued CNN and the Washington Post.

Hunter Biden has yet to sue the New York Post. Again this newspaper was established in 1801 so it is a very old newspaper;. It certainly knows the rules.

Let the courts deal with it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So has Facebook but these are nothing but scare tactics and nothing has been done.

I guess you don’t know about the ongoing legal challenge against one of Trump’s executive orders against the social media companies. I personally wouldn’t call the executive order a scare tactic or evidence of nothing being done.

 

[gam197]

I guess you don’t know about the ongoing legal challenge against one of Trump’s executive orders against the social media companies. I personally wouldn’t call the executive order a scare tactic or evidence of nothing being done.

Jack Dorsey is not afraid of the Trump order.

New York Post is an old established newspaper, let them deal with this. The NYTimes, The Washington Post, and so many newspapers post on Twitter. There are hundreds of news outlets on Twitter.

Again let the courts deal with this.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Jack Dorsey is not afraid of the Trump order.

That’s an interesting response, to shift to a different topic after it’s been pointed out the falsity of the statement of nothing having been done and this only being scare tactics. As I’m not personally interested in Jack’s emotional disposition, I don’t have anything to add to this new topic.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

Jack Dorsey is not afraid of the Trump order.

That’s an interesting response, to shift to a different topic after it’s been pointed out the falsity of the statement of nothing having been done and this only being scare tactics. As I’m not personally interested in Jack’s emotional disposition, I don’t have anything to add to this new topic.

This news story would favor the Trump administration not the opposite so why now is Jack Dorsey afraid of Trump, and his order - no he is not.

The New York Post has been posting on Twitter since Twitter was formed and now all of a sudden they are locked out. Let the story run. Thie courts will deal with it if there is a lawsuit.

 

[gam197]

Here is the latest on this story.

Twitter still holding The Post's account hostage over Hunter Biden links

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Here is the latest on this story.

That confirms what was said in #4

When the user logs back in, they are confronted with a message about the offending tweet. To restore the ability to tweet they must delete the offending message. Then the account works just as if nothing had happened.

In such cases, the user of the account can restore the ability for the account to tweet at any time.

I think this may be a lot of fuss over a would that NY Post can heal at the time of its choosing.

Not deleting can be cashed in for more drama and attention though.

 

[gam197]

Anesti33:

Twitter deletes President Trump’s Tweets when they’re untrue.

More specifically, they add a comment and lower the visibility tweets from nation leaders when they think they are deceptive but remove them when they think the tweet will lead to harm.

Or they must violate Twitter’s TOS in some clear way. Right?

For the “normal” accounts, when something violates the ToS, the user is logged out from all devices. When the user logs back in, they are confronted with a message about the offending tweet. To restore the ability to tweet they must delete the offer doing message. Then the account works just as if nothing had happened.

In such cases, the user of the account can restore the ability for the account to tweet at any time.

I think this may be a lot of fuss over a would that NY Post can heal at the time of its choosing.

Post #4. They delete the president tweets when they deem them untrue. They are the judge and jury on that and that is why they are being looked at.

With regard to the NYPost, they again become the judge and jury as what will be allowed. The NYPost has been on Twitter for years so now all of a sudden, their articles need to scrutinized and their account I locked.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Post #4. They delete the president tweets when they deem them untrue.

Oh no, they delete his tweets that they think can cause harm. For other concerns, they lower the visibility and add a label. He is otherwise free to lie on Twitter.

With regard to the NYPost, they again become the judge and jury as what will be allowed.

Generally, we decide what access that we allow others to freely have to our own property.

 

[Anesti33]

The Internet and the world at large today is a hive of misinformation and believers of such.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, when President Trump or his staff lies about stuff. He’s a narcissist and a braggart, and a sore loser. He has put in place some good staff and good policies, such as anti-abortion, protectionism, health insurance. But when he opens his mouth, oy vey.

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al is now the surrogate Ministry of Truth. They get to decide how information flows to people’s phones and ears. All the social media giants are more or less on the same page when it comes to political and sociological bias.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

ost #4. They delete the president tweets when they deem them untrue.

Oh no, they delete his tweets that they think can cause harm. For other concerns, they lower the visibility and add a label. He is otherwise free to lie on Twitter.

That is only an opinion.

gam197:

With regard to the NYPost, they again become the judge and jury as what will be allowed.

Generally, we decide what access that we allow others to freely have to our own property.

This is not about our property. This is whether an old established newspaper has a right to post a story on social media and not be locked out knowing full well that they could be in the courts with a lawsuit if the story turns out to be false.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is not about our property.

It’s about Twitter’s property.

courts

have already ruled on the matter. You can find rulings for all of the larger social media companies and rulings for Twitter specifically. Most cases alledge Free Speech violations and fail because they either don’t allege Twitter to be a state actor, or make the allegation, though the allegation fails.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

This is not about our property.

It’s about Twitter’s property.

courts

have already ruled on the matter. You can find rulings for all of the larger social media companies and rulings for Twitter specifically. Most cases alledge Free Speech violations and fail because they either don’t allege Twitter to be a state actor, or make the allegation, though the allegation fails.

Have they ruled on taking a national newpaper and shutting it down on their twitter feed. That needs to be the lawsuit. Freedom of the press is a very important thing, the first amendment to the Constitution.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Have they ruled on taking a national newpaper and shutting it down on their twitter feed.

Being a news organization that publishes to the nation doesn’t give the organization any special status. It could be an individual, it could be a corporation. The courts have recognized that the social media companies reserve the right to terminate an account for any reason, including for no reason.

Freedom of the press is a very important thing, the first amendment to the Constitution.

“Freedom of the press” isn’t relevant here. That’s a negative right providing protections from the government. There are no state actors in this interaction. The First Amendment doesn’t put any constraints on Twitter and their moderation decisions.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

reedom of the press is a very important thing, the first amendment to the Constitution.

“Freedom of the press” isn’t relevant here. That’s a negative right providing protections from the government. There are no state actors in this interaction. The First Amendment doesn’t put any constraints on Twitter and their moderation decisions.

Well, it seems that Twitter is allowing the link that the NYPost has posted to be shared because there has been so much talk on social media that it makes no sense to not allow people to link to it. Still, it does not solve the NYPost problem. The NYPost is still locked and I can understand why social media has to be looked at. Once you start locking out newspapers, there is a real problem.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Still, it does not solve the NYPost problem.

They can delete the Tweets in question and make a new one. The remedy is so easy as to make it difficult for me to see this as a problem. It kind of feels like someone that is locked out of their apartment being told there’s a new key under their mat, but the person refusing to pick up the new key.