Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by NeverFade on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:57PM (#24796991)

There's no evidence that any actual hacking took place to obtain the Biden emails. The article stated that they were obtained from a laptop negligently left at a repair shop.

Twitter just decided to claim that the post is lying, with no evidence and no fact-checking, and then banned the Post Twitter account and every other account that shared the article. At the same time, they allow content like the Panama Papers, Pentagon Papers, multiple Wikleaks, Snowden leaks - which were all obtained by admitted unauthorized hacking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by xg15 on Friday October 16, 2020 @02:14AM (#24798031)

If you consider the Snowden leaks the result of "hacking" but the current leaks not, what exactly is your definition of "hacking"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by Karunamon on Friday October 16, 2020 @02:39AM (#24798157)

I for one, would specifically exclude the legal owner of a set of data from copying that data and giving it to a third party from the definition of "hacking".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by xg15 on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:30PM (#24802396)

Agreed, assuming there is informed consent - meaning the legal owner was aware of what was happening, was intending to provide the data and was not deceived.

Without those conditions, you'd exclude the whole field of social engineering from hacking, which is all about making the owner "voluntarily" copy data to a third party - and is widely regarded a subset of "hacking".

Also pending the specific circumstances under which you "own" data, which may not be identical with owning the storage medium, as discussed in other posts.

[ Parent | on HN ]