zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
The article completely misses the point. Some middlemen like Twitter or Facebook does not want to be associated with certain images or point of view, perhaps because of advertising or user demographics or whatever reason, and they decide which content is ok or not. Both sender and receiver can want to have Trump tweets, but Twitter will not want that so they block it.

I don’t think Twitter is wrong, and it is not really different from Apple not letting pornography into the App Store, but it is still deeply troubling to me at some level. And it is neither moderation like discussed in the article or censorship as discussed in the article.

>>kmonse+hs
> Some middlemen like Twitter or Facebook does not want to be associated with certain images or point of view, perhaps because of advertising or user demographics

And that's the precise point at which they cease to be a "middleman" and become a publisher.

>>nonran+lu
That’s maybe true but also outside the point of the article. I was actually thinking of another case, the Hunter Biden laptop. All major news publishers decided not to report on it just before the election even though the story was obviously true and newsworthy. This was actually done by publishers, but still the important point here is that a story did not reach audiences even though maybe at least some of them wanted to see it and some people wanted to tell it like journalists in nytimes.

The blockade was so effective that I thought it was a hoax until recently.