zlacker

[parent] [thread] 10 comments
1. Natura+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:31:47
>Trump, and most right wingers were all banned from TOS violations and harassment and doxxing.

This is directly contrary to the reporting in Twitter Files by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger whose journalistic integrity and credentials exceed yours and mine combined by orders of magnitude:

"On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:

- create justifications to ban Trump

- seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders

- express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/16017204550055116...

And the only doxxing related to LibsOfTikTok was Taylor Lorenz doxxing LibsOfTikTok, to the point that Lorenz showed up at LibsOfTikTok's house in person herself. She didn't just doxx her, she went to her house in person. There are pictures.

edit: Rate limited for telling a truth that HN dislikes again...

Here's my reply to the below:

>If they then publish your home address? Sure.

She did publish her home address, after showing up there. Some tweets containing it are apparently still up, as she complained about it to Musk in a thread about the journalists being suspended (for 7 days it turns out).

She claimed the identity of the account was of public interest on CNN here: https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/15182845369660456...

But then showed up at relatives' houses of LibsOfTikTok too: https://thepostmillennial.com/libs-of-tik-tok-exposes-taylor...

Do you mean to tell me that the relatives of that account were of public interest after exposing the account as an American woman?

It was a deliberate doxxing, by Taylor Lorenz aimed at LibsOfTikTok on purpose.

replies(4): >>Bryant+O2 >>xcrunn+g4 >>md_+h4 >>kweing+2i
2. Bryant+O2[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:48:38
>>Natura+(OP)
… okay, a journalist showing up at your house is not doxxing. If they then publish your home address? Sure. But a journalist knocking on your door to get your side of the story is not and has never been doxing.

And I’m saying this as someone who thinks the decision to publish LOTT’s real name was borderline, despite the fact that LOTT decided to use her real name for her domain registration.

replies(1): >>xcrunn+85
3. xcrunn+g4[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:58:34
>>Natura+(OP)
Trump has numerous examples of TOS violations and was even suspended at first for them. He was treated very differently from everyone else. THATS WHAT THEY SEEKED TO CHANGE.

You conveniently misinterpreted or even left our crucial pieces of the so called “twitter files” including that the policies of shadow banning and such were already mentioned and known.

Some of the employees were literally asking for reasons to KEEP certain right wing accounts on twitter.

They listened to violations of revenge porn AND TOS violations of Hunter Biden’s dick. The right wing really seems obsessed with seeing it because the links that were all mentioned in the docs were all of his dick LOL

LibsofTikTok causing harassment to children’s hospitals and they still weren’t even banned. No they weren’t promoted in the algorithm but there’s no right to be amplified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/lgbtq-t...

replies(1): >>chrisb+301
4. md_+h4[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:58:36
>>Natura+(OP)
That thread is really hard to follow.

Is the claim that Twitter changed their ToS in order to justify banning Trump? If so, can you share the before and after texts? I assume the Internet Archive would have snapshots.

Or is the point, literally, that people at Twitter discussed whether a change of policy was a good idea in the context of the Jan 6 insurrection? In which case, like...wouldn't you sort of expect them to have conversations about the fitness of the ToS to an unprecedented situation? That sounds like doing their jobs competently, no?

replies(1): >>xcrunn+y5
◧◩
5. xcrunn+85[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 04:04:46
>>Bryant+O2
Omg I posted public info on the internet and I’m being called on it!!

(Besides the fact that Elon literally doxxed his former employee trying to insinuate he is a pedo)

◧◩
6. xcrunn+y5[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 04:07:32
>>md_+h4
I’m personally waiting for the “twitter files” from the last couple weeks. Surely, with his commitment to transparency he will release them.
replies(1): >>chrisb+y01
7. kweing+2i[view] [source] 2022-12-16 05:28:24
>>Natura+(OP)
> "On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:

> - create justifications to ban Trump

> - seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders

> - express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"

Funnily enough this is literally exactly what Musk has done in the last 24 hours with regard to the @ElonJet account and the people reporting on it.

◧◩
8. chrisb+301[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 11:46:29
>>xcrunn+g4
> the policies of shadow banning and such were already mentioned and known.

They were "known" in the same sense that everybody already "knew" that the US government spies on us before Snowden leaked the details.

Twitter claimed that they didn't shadowban - in fact there's a tweet out there somewhere (I think I saw it shared in one of the Twitter Files threads itself) in which Jack Dorsey himself explicitly denies that Twitter shadowbans. To claim that the Files didn't reveal any new information is utterly disingenuous.

replies(1): >>xcrunn+mV1
◧◩◪
9. chrisb+y01[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 11:50:48
>>xcrunn+y5
Are you being ironic? I'm genuinely not sure if I understand what you're saying. You know the Twitter files have been released, right? Or has HN really done that good a job of burying discussion on them?
replies(1): >>xcrunn+xj2
◧◩◪
10. xcrunn+mV1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:06:51
>>chrisb+301
What they reviewed is a normal process of a moderation group. There’s nothing explosive in them.

Interesting how you moved on from “government involvement” when everyone realizes Biden campaign wasn’t the government and it was dick picks they were trying to remove.

Shadowban was literally talked about earlier this year. https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/5/23012046/twitter-prisoner-...

◧◩◪◨
11. xcrunn+xj2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 19:00:23
>>chrisb+y01
Twitter files referring to internal communications on these latest decisions.
[go to top]