After further reflection I think Twitter has made a mistake censoring the NY Post article. It's garbage journalism, but that's not why they censored it.
Twitter is claiming that it contains hacked content and linking to it violates its policies. 1/n
Twitter is claiming that it contains hacked content and linking to it violates its policies. 1/n
First, let's note that Twitter has consistently penalized accounts for linking to hacked content. Their actions are at least consistent when viewed at face value.
The question for me then is this: does this constitute "hacked content?" I really don't think it does. 2/
The question for me then is this: does this constitute "hacked content?" I really don't think it does. 2/
If you take the story at face value, this is data recovered from abandoned property. Imagine you see a computer in a public trash can. You take it and extract data from the drive. Is that hacked data? More importantly, would Twitter censor a story with that data? 3/
But this story is crazier than that. If the computer was dropped off for service, the transfer of the property was certainly governed by the terms and conditions of the shop. Those CERTAINLY dictate that abandoned equipment becomes their property. 4/
Following that logic, the claimed computer repair shop owner now owns the equipment, presumably including any data on the devices.
Now I'm sure the former owner could file suit claiming damages based on the transfer of the data to others. But we're talking about censorship. 5/
Now I'm sure the former owner could file suit claiming damages based on the transfer of the data to others. But we're talking about censorship. 5/
From where I sit, this article shouldn't be censored. There's a non-zero chance that the evidence is fabricated. But I don't want to see platforms censoring content based on the mere possibility of manufactured evidence. That's a slippery slope that should scare us all. 6/
A few closing thoughts:
1. NY Post took evidence from known shady actors and failed to forensically validate it. Then they failed to alert the reader of that fact (and significance). That's bad journalism in my opinion.
2. The computer repair shop owner is a bad actor as well. 7/
1. NY Post took evidence from known shady actors and failed to forensically validate it. Then they failed to alert the reader of that fact (and significance). That's bad journalism in my opinion.
2. The computer repair shop owner is a bad actor as well. 7/
Even at face value, this is not a national security issue. Assuming the story is true, I can't get behind handing over someone's personal data (as clearly happened) to anyone other than law enforcement (and I have some issues even there). Bottom line: he acted in bad faith. 8/
3. Consume media critically. Especially with misinformation campaigns, you have to ask the hard questions. In this case, one question would be "why has no other outlet run with the story?" The answer is that it's a credibility issue. /FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
