> {Except in limited cases of newsworthiness, }content claimed by the poster or confirmed to come from a hacked source, regardless of whether the affected person is a public figure or a private individual.
Coincidentally, this was the exact same day that, per the indictment (pg. 27, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25176674/iran.pdf), Iranian hackers allegedly reached out to try to share the documents in question with campaign officials.
It’s exceedingly fast for a leak about the hack to have turned into legal language changes, and it’s unlikely the events were directly related, unless there’s more to the story. But this is also in the context of Meta’s shutdown of other transparency tools: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
In isolation, it’s perhaps good that Meta is not setting itself as an arbiter of newsworthiness, if the rule is applied evenly and equally to future hacks of various parties. But the rule is too new, even setting aside coincidences, to know if it will be.
The PDF link posted by moneycantbuy in this thread appears to be appropriately redacted, hiding personal information which isn't newsworthy such as his social security number and home address.. but even then, I just tried Googling "JD Vance home" and I get tons of results showing his home. I'm sure anyone could go to the Hamilton County records office and obtain the redacted property records.
Basically, this all looks like public information. There's no good reason for any platform to censor this, unless a version containing the unredacted SSN is floating around.. I can see reason in disallowing that version, if it exists.
That's the problematic part. The factcheckers can just sit on something that doesn't help their cause and then attempt to deal with it years later.
E.g. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
I was trying to say that it shouldn't matter if the information came from mainstream news source, a hacker, enemy state or whoever else. My understanding is that meta blocked the dossier solely on the basis of where they believe the information originated.
That is not a good reason. Social Security numbers are not secret, rather they're akin to a name equivalent. Negligent companies continue abusing them as if knowing them proves identity, because they apparently find it more profitable to reduce customer friction and then eat the resulting fraud (at least the fraud they can't push on to others). This and the financial industry's whole larger "identity theft" ruse is supported by the needless tiptoeing around ID numbers, and we need to just stop.
We had a similar leak during the french presidential election, the "MacronLeaks". It was a mix of fabricated scandalous data, and legitimate boring data. I'm glad the media chose not to cover it.
At this point, just have the debates in public about what is and is not true. The sweaty palms of those trying to shepherd the public reek of propaganda and corruption.
"I'm glad the media chose not to cover it"
Why? Because this time it served your own preferences? Will you br ate where you as glad when its the opposite side 'protecting' you?
Exact thing happened with wikileaks Hillary email leak and the Hunter Biden laptop.
What’s fair is fair, if they censor one set of controversial findings they ought censor the other.
What's in this dossier that's in the public interest?
> this all looks like public information.
Yes, doxing is public info.
Can I publish all the names and street addresses and phone numbers in a document of Kamala Harris's extended family to make some newsworthy point about their homes. (rich = she's not one of us / poor = she's not good enough if she can't pull her relatives out of poverty)
> I'm sure anyone could go to the Hamilton County records office
This is a site for hackers, try and learn the difference between data available in search, data available online and data available in the meat world. These are not the same, as a hacker (Startup/Blackhat/curious) this difference matters.
The dossier poisoned itself permanently doxing with the phone number & home address. Kiwi Farms/8chan/4chan are there for people who want to dox. (Kiwi Farms has the unredacted version, Ken Klippenstein redacted his download)
Yes. Such a document is or at least was once referred to as a phonebook.
>try and learn the difference between data available in search, data available online and data available in the meat world. These are not the same, as a hacker (Startup/Blackhat/curious) this difference matters.
Citizen and professional journalists regularly record and expose persons of interest going about their daily lives. For decades now, they've obtained this information not through requisitions from city hall, but through online databases like Lexis Nexis or municipal criminal record databases. It's not a crime to publish an inconvenient truth. In fact, when individuals come forward as whistleblowers, they are lionized for their divulgence of the truth.
Democracy is vulnerable to manipulation. But that’s an essential vulnerability.
In the end, it’s the citizenry which is responsible for sober decision making.
I understand the impulse to keep “irrelevant” or “manipulative” information away from decision makers, but this impulse is only appropriate when the decision makers are perfunctory.
Is that where we are? I don’t think so.
http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsid...
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-49...
X (Twitter) blocks links to hacked JD Vance dossier
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41662702
Twitter banned me after publishing the JD Vance Dossier
Stepping back - the degree to which suppression of information has been normalized is disturbing. We’re seeing this all over the world today. Brazil with secret censorship of social media content and users. The EU with DSA. Australia with the recently proposed misinformation bill and fines for social media companies. Canada with various censorship measures. The US with government agencies aggressively pressuring private companies to perform censorship on their behalf. And of course private companies acting in near perfect coordination to shut down information sources. The most recent example of that is probably the ban of RT (Russian state controlled media).
Individuals should be allowed to communicate freely, access information freely, and decide for themselves what to make of that information. They should be able to decide what is factual. They don’t need protection, and the claims that they should be censored for their won good is at worst dystopian and at best a way to keep people from seeing information that undermines those in power. We need a massive revival of free speech values, globally.
But they are completely consistent. If something helps one particular party/ideology - it's allowed and promoted, if it helps the other side - it's banned. Simple as
Who would want such a thing exposed?
How many Trump voters care about the details of JD Vance enough to change their vote (zero)?
Why has Zuck publicly shifted from strong anti-Trump positioning to neutral or mildly pro-Trump?
The Razor only works when you use it.
I can understand a government's hesitancy to do that, because if the whole society believes the same mistruths (especially about history, politics etc.), it is more stable and productive than one which has people at odds with each other over what they consider the truth to be.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/macron-hackers...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/macron-hackers...