Twitter Fixes Its Bad Policy On Blocking 'Hacked' Documents
from the good-to-see dept
As I'm sure you're already aware, there was a lot of focus this week on Twitter's content moderation practices, after it chose to stop people from linking to a sketchy NY Post article that contained some emails taken from a computer that was claimed to have been Hunter Biden's laptop. While many in the Trump orbit were insisting that this was "anti-conservative bias," the company said that the issue was violating its "hacked content" policies, as well as its policies against showing images revealing personal information, such as email addresses.
As we have discussed in the past this policy was already quite controversial, out of fear that it would be used to block reporting on leaked documents.
Late last night, Twitter announced that after hearing those concerns, they were changing the policy. Rather than responding to the controversy, and the nonsense grandstanding by clueless politicians, they were actually responding to the legitimate concerns many of raised about how this policy could block legitimate reporting, journalism organizations, and activist groups:
Why the changes? We want to address the concerns that there could be many unintended consequences to journalists, whistleblowers and others in ways that are contrary to Twitter’s purpose of serving the public conversation.
— Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) October 16, 2020
The new policy is that Twitter may -- instead of blocking such links outright -- begin to add labels and context to such links. In other words (once again) taking a "more speech" approach, rather than a straight up "block" decision. I think this is the right move and, while I wish Twitter had made it earlier, it's good to see the company paying attention and improving.
So, what’s changing?
1. We will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them
2. We will label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter
— Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) October 16, 2020
As the new announcement notes, the policy against linking to private information or manipulated media remain in place -- suggesting that this won't actually change the ability to link to that NY Post article. But it does fix the hamfisted nature of that policy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, friction, hacked documents, journalism, labelling, more speech, reporting
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And how do you know the NYP story is sketchy?
Oh, that's right, left wingers never have to prove their bilge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First off, most people of any political leaning know that NYP in general is sketchy, like the National Enquirer.
Second, if you read the previous article, you’d know exactly why the whole thing was sketchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLASTS Twitter:
First, WHERE ARE YOUR FANBOYS, MAZ? I compliment you on getting this abject admission that you too were wrong out. Guess the kids can't bear it.
International Fact-Checking Network Associate Director Cristina Tard guila penned the blistering column headlined, "Without methodology or transparency, Facebook and Twitter become the `arbiters of the truth," which stated that anyone who doesn't believe that is dangerous is simply "naive."
Of course, "simply" is a compliment because implies innocent, but here at Techdirt, you clearly intend to suppress all other viewpoints and Truth, "simply" reject those in favor of agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLASTS Twitter:
I compliment you on getting this abject admission that you too were wrong out.
The "abject admission" that I was wrong... is pointing out that Twitter has made the very change we suggested they make to fix the very policy we pointed out was a problem?
Dude. Seriously. Troll better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLASTS Twitt
So "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown" in YOUR OWN HEADLINE shows nothing of your own editorial evaluation? BALONEY.
YOU characterize the whole topic with those three words, PUNK, stating your view that it was all hooey, and you're FLATLY WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can call the conservative meltdown over the decision “ridiculous” (because it was) and criticize Twitter’s decision as “dumb” (because it was) at the same time. I’m sorry that you can’t seem to hold two thoughts in your head without overheating your brain, but that’s a “you” problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLASTS T
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit, but this is silly even by your incredibly low standards.
The ridiculous trumpist meltdown is correct, because it was ridiculous -- because it was based on misunderstanding WHY Twitter did what it did. We were clear about which parts of the policy we thought were misguided (next time read the actual post before you pretend we said something we did not).
These two things can be true at the same time, which is why our post was entirely consistent:
That was the argument we made. Twitter has now corrected number two. But I haven't seen any Trumpists (especially not you) recognize number one yet. But not understanding the difference between both of these issues does not mean that we were wrong about one. Because we were not.
Now that I've dumbed it down for you, have you got it yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLAS
Trumpists do have a long history of problems with "number one" :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Silly-Con Valley fact-checker training firm BLASTS T
Dude - you suck at this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The previous article on this dumbassed decision by Twitter criticized the decision. Twitter had the right to do it, but that didn’t make it the right thing to do.
And if you’re relying on Facebook or Twitter as an “arbiter of truth”, you have bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Ignore "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown" HEADLINE?
And now we're supposed to just overlook Masnick's BLARING and utterly wrong characterization?
You PUNKS have lost this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me where the conservative reaction to the decision wasn’t “ridiculous” and driven by “Trumpists”. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Ignore "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown" HEADLINE?
How was it incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greenwald: Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous
Than What They Censor
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than -what-they-censor/
Among the much else you kids aren't strong enough to even read is this EXACT but more eloquent statement of my views:
You FEW kids should always recall that while I'm outnumbered HERE on tiny TD, there is a real world.
Now, I like this quote, even more points up the merely mechanical nature of FB and Twitter as HOSTS, not publishers:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you believe the government should take over operations of Facebook and Twitter, thereby ripping private property from the hands of its owners and taking it for the government’s own purposes? Because it really kinda sounds like that’s what you want, comrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown", eh? Dorsey refutes you.
Greenwald refutes you.
You're just tiny little WRONG Masnick, a few fanboys, and some paid-for astro-turfing.
Most importantly: Biden is NOT denying the evidence is real! Only media flacks and contrary little leftists like TD fanboys are. So it may explode full in your faces, kids.
Now, if only there were some term to attracting MORE attention by trying to downplay and say true news is fake... I suggest Masnick Effect.
I may go on another tear and keep at this topic. Of course I'll "fail to shit on" it, as one "AC" indirectly complimented me for my efforts on a Nunes piece way back -- because my purpose is to simply state Truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown", eh? Dorsey ref
And does not your headline of the prior piece show "anti-conservative bias"?
You've backtracked, you sniveling little PUNK.
Bring on the ad hom, kids, it's all you've got left on this topic, it's been abjectly abandoned by your leftist corporates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y’know, not for nothin’, but “punk” isn’t exactly the insult you think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re doing a very poor job of living up to your god-given purpose, Brainy Smurf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree "very poor" indeed.
I'm doomed to first-level forever. BUT as a Lawful Good Paladin, I'm going the right direction, no matter how slowly.
And thanks for the compliment! "Brainy Smurf", heh, heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahahahahaha you think you’re a holy warrior doing god’s work by trolling techdirt
holy shit what the fuck is wrong with you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mr. Stone: you are being way too hard on him.
He's had a long hard day fight space lizards.
(/s, absolutely /s)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree "very poor" indeed.
Lawful good paladin? Nah. You're a Chaotic Stupid Commoner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree "very poor" indeed.
Lawful and Good are pretty often at odds themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, "Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown", eh? Dorsey refutes you.
?Wow, interesting point.
But can you say that either side isnt corrupted?
There Ideals change with every election, on both sides.
A 2 party system has so many holes in it, it wouldnt hold water as well as a colander.
Letting the 30%(repub's and demo's) control the other 70% of this nation is abit retarded.
The people are supposed to be responsible for our nation. And we elect those we 'HOPE' will do their best by the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Glenn Greenwald was against what Twitter and Facebook did.
And he refutes your arguments about censorship, Mike.
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than- what-they-censor/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't answer.
That too is a lie: it's NOT "the community", it's an admin.
State how many clicks out of how many readers, Maz. Go on, give us some "transparency" on your own methods and policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it really matter if “the community” or an admin flags your posts when they’re going to get flagged anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the difference between thinking that one person has it out for you versus the community at large thinking that you're such a despicable little worm that nothing you say has any value and therefore deserves flagging.
One of those plays into a persecution/humiliation fetish, the other would require acknowledging that maybe they are the asshole in the room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't answer.
"That too is a lie: it's NOT "the community", it's an admin."
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't ans
Your demand demonstrates astonishing bad faith. Anonymous Coward is requesting the means to do just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And now the censoring sets in to HIDE what you can't
I don’t think the admins have that data. It’s probably kept hidden from them, too, to help preserve anonymity and other reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the joke, ignore the conservatives
Claiming
A: Twitter is censoring
B: Twitter must stop censoring conservative speech
While not understanding the difference between the government restricting free speech and a private business running its business, typical Trumpette.
Then to claim Federal Gov should take over whether Twitter blocks/bans people/posts on their site, wow. Just imagine how nice that would be; The Dems rule the House. They stand a solid chance of getting the Senate, and the presidency. So, that would mean (slowly now, or the Trumpette will get lost) the Democrats would be the one deciding who Twitter should ban and/or block.
Funny! Although admittedly, Trumpettes are the world's worst joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better late than never
While I can understand why they might have had that rule in place it really wasn't a good one, given as pointed out in the article it would also impact some important instances of whistleblowing, so I'm glad sanity prevailed here and they decided to toss it.
Having rules to limit problematic content is one thing, but it's important to narrow them down and keep context in mind lest you end up blocking something that very much should not be blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better late than never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Better late than never
When you start to state very specifically what is allowed or not, someone will find a loophole that fall outside the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Better late than never
Precision is what makes the difference between a policy and a smokescreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Better late than never
Precision in a policy is a smokescreen to placate some people while those in the know can use it as a loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Better late than never
Precision is what makes it transparent when someone tries to get away with doing so.
Your sophistry is boring, and I can't guarantee I'll continue replying to it. Anyone fooled by it is probably hopelessly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BlueLeaks?
So, are they gonna unban the journalists with Distributed Denial of Secrets? And stop blocking links to BlueLeaks? And unban all the other people they banned for it? Not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BlueLeaks?
They are not. Wonder if they still block links to news articles about them blocking DDOS. Probably.
https://gizmodo.com/no-twitter-did-not-stop-blocking-urls-and-hacked-conte-1845393137/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BlueLeaks?
so Twitter selectively applies their policies? What a surprise! This is the reason why their policy change is absolutely irrelevant in the first place. Some "materials" are more "hacked" than others, and some "news" are more "news". But yeah, let's pat Twitter on the shoulder for updating a policy they will never consistently uphold anyway, because apparently the form is more important than the substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Etch a sketch
Nothing sketchy about a deeply sourced confirmed trove of emails revealing that Biden has been lying through his teeth.
Twitter shouldn't be blocking anything for any reason. Free Speech means the freedom of people to say stuff or show stuff that you don't like. There's no point in free speech otherwise.
Trying to pretend that this hard drive full of all kind of things is not real or is sketchy? Man how do you sleep at night? This is going to be the biggest thing in US History and you are talking like it's nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etch a sketch
No one has yet presented evidence that the laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden.
What is even more troubling is that the emails NYP published was PDF's (that where created a year ago) and the really incriminating email was only published as an image. No one can verify the veracity of an email presented as an image which is why anyone with their reasoning faculties intact ask themselves WHY that particular email wasn't presented as a PDF like the others.
Deeply sourced?? Only gullible idiots believe in unsubstantiated claims that have troubling inconsistencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Etch a sketch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Etch a sketch
Why would he? If says they are authentic he's screwed, if he says they are inauthentic he will be called a liar by those who think they are authentic. The only valid option for him is to say "No comment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Etch a sketch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bold of you to assume that a denial would be greeted with good faith by Republicans and their supporters/voter base. If anything, a denial on Biden’s part would make them believe the emails are 100% legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are indeed people like you describe. And there are people who aren't. It is for the second sort of audience that you issue a denial.
When you don't, and instead try to paint everyone who asks what's going on as some kind of unhinged partisan ultra, you invite them to suspect that the damaging material is largely authentic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Etch a sketch
How well has that worked when we look back at other controversial "leaks" where people have unequivocally said it's false or have thrown up "smoke screens" and smeared people asking questions?
Look at the hysterics around Joe Biden and Ukraine even before the NYP article for an example how well your suggestions worked. Heck, even the republican inquiry into that found nothing - and we still have the window-lickers uttering the words "Biden is corrupt!".
It's almost like you where born yesterday since you don't seem to remember all the shit that has been going on the last years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Etch a sketch
funny that Twitter still allows the false story about russian bounties on american soldiers... even after it has been denied by an investigation from the Pentagon itself. @SenDuckworth is twitting this false story, using it against Trump, but that is okay. Next to come: reports about how Biden laptop was made in Russia and the original emails were written in cyrillic. And without any proof, this hacked mails will become a "russian disinformation" operation as well, like everything else (twisting the arm of OPCW to bomb Syria, russian bounties etc etc)
“To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says as authorities are investigating if recently published emails are tied to a Russian disinformation effort targeting Biden. https://t.co/shyMNnJ7Yr pic.twitter.com/GFSeIWXeY4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter didn’t publish any stories about that allegation, and unless the stories being linked to violated Twitter’s rules against directly linking to hacked materials/sharing private information, it can’t (and shouldn’t) do anything to stop people from sharing links to those stories. And if you’ll note, Twitter didn’t do a goddamned thing to stop Twitter users from discussing the NY Post article.
Given how the man who allegedly had the laptop in his possession before Giuliani keeps changing his story and how the emails are only available as PDFs (and in one instance, an image file), the laptop story certainly comes off as an attempt to use doctored materials as a way of ratfucking Biden with less than a month to go before Election Day. And given how Giuliani was (according to U.S. intelligence officials) being targeted by Russia for the purpose of spreading their disinformation, the theory of “the laptop story is a Russian disinformation campaign” has more credibility than you might think.
Unless, of course, you’re such a die-hard orange-ass-kissing Trump supporter that you’ll literally ignore anything said by anyone who isn’t a Republican or a fellow asskisser. In that case, you’re well past the point of being reasoned with, and I wish you luck in your eventual home within the QAnon movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"has more credibility than you might think"
Sure, and credibility is the key word. There is no credibility. There are no hard proofs, on both sides. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the previous attempt from democrats to use false accusations on "russian bounties", especially weeks after they were officially disproved by the Pentagon, just shows how much of disinformation is there, from both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only if you ignore everything that connects Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign to Russians and Trump-friendly Russian disinformation campaigns. Also, I’ve never seen Trump supporters or “view from nowhere” assholes like you answer these questions to any degree of satisfaction:
Why did Trump’s people have so many interactions with Russian officials, Russian oligarchs, and other people connected to Vladimir Putin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1 Why did Trump’s people have so many interactions with Russian officials, Russian oligarchs, and other people connected to Vladimir Putin?
Because, apart from waging wars (with weapons, and economic sanctions) with adversarial countries, you can also talk to their leadership, you know. It is called "diplomacy" and involves unlimited amounts of under the table dealings, corruption and shady behavior. If only I saw the same outrage about dealing with Saudi MBS after he sent the order to chop a journalist working in the US into pieces, making his body disappear, with recordings of his screaming, well, you could have an argument. But you know, blaming only some dirty deals because you like another flavor of dirt does not make your argument any more convincing.
When they were asked about those interactions, why did they all lie?
Because they had some sirty deals to hide. And because in the last 30 years the US international politics became entangled into a web of lies that are now running the narrative. It all started when Bush lied the world into killing a million Iraqis, including countless children, on groundless WMD accusations. That is war crime, based on lies. Then went on with Afghanistan - as shown in the papers published earlier this year. And the same can be said about Obama supporting genocide in Yemen. Yet, look at the power of the narrative, we discuss about some hacked emails, as if they carried the same weight as hundreds of thousands of massacred human beings. Trying to blame it on the russians, even though they have their own fair share of blood on their hands, is just a narrative spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason would the Trump campaign engage in “diplomacy” with a foreign power before he won the election?
People were outraged at the killing of Jamal Khashoggi; that you didn’t see/hear about the outrage is a product of either unintentional ignorance or willful disregard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For what reason would the Trump campaign engage in “diplomacy” with a foreign power before he won the election?
For the same reason different politicians from various countries participated at Trump and Clinton rallies or fundraisers. Just check the list of foreign donors for both campaigns and you will have a pretty clear picture. Pretending that foreign financing and meddling and lobbying happened only from Russia is pathetic. Why do you think that Trump first visited Saudi Arabia? Because he loves the climate there?w
People were outraged at the killing of Jamal Khashoggi; that you didn’t see/hear about the outrage is a product of either unintentional ignorance or willful disregard.Really? So outraged that US continued to help Saudi commit genocide in Yemen? What is your definition of outrage, exactly?
It’s funny how you deflect away from explaining why the Trump campaign officials lied about meeting all those Russians by talking about unrelated war crimes. That might give me pause to think you’re part of the current disinformation campaign, comrade.Look, if you cherry pick lies from guys like Brennan and choose to believe them, that is your problem. He lied about the NSA surveillance state, fabricated lies about the last 20 years of wars, and because of these lies nations were destroyed and innocent people died. Now the fact that Brennan tweets about russian disinformation for me is the proof that there is no story and it is another lie. What is really funny is that you understand that these guys are serial liars... but you think that the "russian disinformation story" is just really the only time when they got it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter Refuses To Unlock NYPost Account Unless...
...Paper Deletes Tweets About Hunter Biden
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-refuses-unlock-nypost-account-unless-paper-delete s-tweets-about-hunter-biden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WSJ states it's CENSORSHIP, refuting anti-American PUNK MM.
[This para from Breitbart] An editorial published by the Wall Street Journal condemned Twitter's decision to blacklist bombshell stories from the New York Post that detail an alleged relationship between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma.
Rest is from WSJ:
Break there to let that soak in. The WSJ states what I often have: Maz isn't defending freedom but a power grab by corporations.
WOW. The Wall Street Journal believes in American values exactly as I do, entirely in contrast to you PUNKS. Tell me again how I'm an isolated nut?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-partisan-censors-11602803394
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WSJ states it's CENSORSHIP, refuting anti-American PUNK MM.
TD already said they disagree with the original policy reasons behind that decision from the start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]