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

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by barbacoa on Friday October 16, 2020 @01:04AM (#24797663)

Saying a public person's email address is private information that could lead to physical harm is quite a stretch. If the NYP had redacted the email addresses they would have named a different excuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by bmarquez on Friday October 16, 2020 @01:24AM (#24797762)

I've seen commenters on HN that claim that the emails are suspect because they don't include DKIM signatures. Redacting the email would make it even more suspicious in their eyes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by boomboomsubban on Friday October 16, 2020 @05:36AM (#24799140)

I'm not saying that, it is a list of three. And on the guideline for "private information," non-public emails are explicitly mentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by barbacoa on Friday October 16, 2020 @10:34AM (#24801161)

If it has been published in a major newspaper is it still non-public?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by boomboomsubban on Friday October 16, 2020 @11:36AM (#24801843)

Yes, it is compromised private information.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by joe_the_user on Friday October 16, 2020 @02:57AM (#24798282)

Sure,

Maybe Twitter would have found other reasons to block the story if it didn't violate an explicit policy literally, for example it being fake news. Calling something fake news takes more investigation and judgement so the reason they gave was simplest.

It's like, boy, they sure have it in for a sleazy and deceptive hit-piece meant to influence an election at the last moment. Unfair!

[ Parent | on HN ]