TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Twitter banned me after publishing the JD Vance Dossier

81 点作者 slantedview8 个月前

13 条评论

codexb8 个月前
The journalist here is not being entirely truthful. While much of the information that the campaign used to vet JD Vance was public, not all of it was, and the internal comments are definitely not public information.<p>It&#x27;s a bit like saying hacked internal emails are public if they are discussing public topics.<p>The reason the media generally doesn&#x27;t publish hacked documents is so they don&#x27;t create an incentive for people to hack documents. It&#x27;s the same reason why many media companies won&#x27;t publish pictures and sometimes names of mass shooters and child suicides.<p>You&#x27;re free to do it. But many media companies don&#x27;t do it for legitimate practical, ethical, and moral reasons.
评论 #41663412 未加载
评论 #41663362 未加载
评论 #41664408 未加载
mmooss8 个月前
&gt; X says that I’ve been suspended for “violating our rules against posting private information,” citing a tweet linking to my story about the JD Vance dossier.<p>Be aware that it fits an ongoing to campaign to limit free speech, especially in regard to goverment officials and public figures. They want to make it illegal or impossible to criticize government or powerful people, both of which are the foundations of free speech - those are the most important forms of speech.<p>They approach it in multiple ways that I&#x27;m aware of:<p>* They want the Supreme Court to change their precedent - as the current court has done many times for other areas of law - in the 1964 <i>New York Times Co. v. Sullivan</i> case, which established that public officials only have a claim if they prove the critical speech was false and also was published with &quot;actual malice&quot;; that is &quot;with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.&quot; At least one of the conservative justices, I forget which one, has encouraged people to bring such a case to the Supreme Court so the justice could rule on it.<p>* They use or legally harass people into ceasing publication, including by having the state attack them. Examples include the lawsuit against Media Matters. Even if the defendants win, the financial impact can be enormous. Many can&#x27;t afford to publish criticism.<p>In the end, everything comes down to politics. Politics makes the law, so it overcomes rule of law. If you don&#x27;t get involved and make these things change - like our predecessors did to build the freedom the US already enjoys - freedom, including free speech will diminish.
评论 #41663711 未加载
diebeforei4858 个月前
Their rules are fairly clear about hack-and-leak content. A lot of other social media platforms don&#x27;t allow it either.
themaninthedark8 个月前
As far as I know Twitter is still HQ in California and the current laws is:<p>The legal definition of posting harmful information on the internet under California Penal Code 653.2 is as follows:<p>You used an electronic communication device to distribute electronically, publish, email, hyperlink or make available for downloading personal identifying information or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person;<p>You did so without that person’s consent;<p>You did so with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his&#x2F;her safety or the safety of his&#x2F;her immediate family;<p>You did so for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment; andThe personal identifying information or message you shared would be likely to incite or produce that unwanted physical contact, injury or harassment.
评论 #41663585 未加载
reedf18 个月前
Free speech on privately owned platforms will always be an illusion at best.
ChrisArchitect8 个月前
Related:<p><i>X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41662702">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41662702</a>
CBLT8 个月前
TFA didn&#x27;t mention what private information was contained in the dossier. Is it his street address? SSN?
评论 #41663340 未加载
leshokunin8 个月前
Did it feel like free speech when you got banned?
VFIT7CTO77TOC8 个月前
x is a private company and it can do what it wants
评论 #41663311 未加载
评论 #41663322 未加载
评论 #41663316 未加载
mksreddy8 个月前
Free speech for his (Elon: Right Wing) ideology, not for everyone.
评论 #41663308 未加载
aeturnum8 个月前
Of course you write this post to have the discourse - but it is Elon&#x27;s website and he can do what he wants with it I suppose. I don&#x27;t think any era of Twitter has had very consistent moderation decisions and I don&#x27;t think it matters much in any era - either now or when conservatives were making hay about it around covid. It seems clear that the prevailing political views of the owner are influential, but not dictatorial, and that&#x27;s about as good as it gets in our world.<p>That said I am all for yelling at elon to try to get him to change the policies, which works a lot of the time, and seems like a pretty reasonable way to manage the margins of these things.
christkv8 个月前
Now do it for the other VP candidate let&#x27;s see what happens. If your theory is right he should not ban it right?
评论 #41663318 未加载
eeasss8 个月前
His holyness Elon