undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNacdor5y ago0 comments

No, I'm mainly referring to the NY Post which was pre-emptively banned before Twitter had fact-checked their story. Even after it was proven that the story was true, Twitter refused to unlock their account. It took weeks of immense public pressure and even then the NY Post might've still been forced to delete the "offending" tweets just to satisfy Twitter and get their account back.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1354077568555692034

No sane journalist would rely on Twitter for income after that.

0 comments

NicoJuicy5y ago

> Even after it was proven that the story was true

Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.

Source?

NacdorOP5y ago

The email authenticity was verified via DKIM signature.

I'm not going to break it down point-by-point because you're just shifting the goalposts now. Twitter and FB let plenty of fake and exaggerated stories run wild when they say something negative about Trump. For example, the fake stories about Trump telling people to "Drink/inject bleach", the fake stories about him calling COVID a "hoax", and the fake stories about him calling Nazis "very fine people".

All of those were debunked -- even by left-leaning fact-checkers -- yet none of them were removed or penalized on the social media platforms.

NicoJuicy5y ago

If you have a whole text and sometime can't debunk a certain paragraph, that doesn't mean the story is true.

> Many can't be validated. They are sent from domains that don't use DKIM to sign outgoing emails.

> There are other timestamps in the email headers/metadata, but they aren't validated by DKIM, and hence, could be forged.

> I personally have many doubts about where this email came from, and the overall "narrative" they are trying to push. Regardless, I can validate the basic facts about this email.

Like I said: it contains elements of truth. Someone send a guy one email to verify that one explicitly...

dakna5y ago

Words matter, especially when you are the so called leader of the free world. It is not the responsibility of the media to make sure every interpretation of meaning and context is as close as possible to the intention (which is unknown anyway) to shield a public representative from himself.

Or as Steve Jobs put it: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering."

A good spin has at least one verifiable element and the rest is vague enough to not be accountable, but still gets the message out.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

NicoJuicy5y ago

> Even after it was proven that the story was true

Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.

Source?

NacdorOP5y ago

The email authenticity was verified via DKIM signature.

All of those were debunked -- even by left-leaning fact-checkers -- yet none of them were removed or penalized on the social media platforms.

NicoJuicy5y ago

If you have a whole text and sometime can't debunk a certain paragraph, that doesn't mean the story is true.

> Many can't be validated. They are sent from domains that don't use DKIM to sign outgoing emails.

> There are other timestamps in the email headers/metadata, but they aren't validated by DKIM, and hence, could be forged.

> I personally have many doubts about where this email came from, and the overall "narrative" they are trying to push. Regardless, I can validate the basic facts about this email.

Like I said: it contains elements of truth. Someone send a guy one email to verify that one explicitly...

dakna5y ago

Or as Steve Jobs put it: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering."

A good spin has at least one verifiable element and the rest is vague enough to not be accountable, but still gets the message out.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse