> {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.
If it's in the public interest, and it's true, then it's news and should be published regardless of who came up with it or their possible motives are for doing so.
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.
Yeah, I agree. It's not the place of a social media platform to judge. There's no such thing as unbiased, neutral fact checkers. Readers will have to judge the truth of it for themselves.
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.
Social media platforms have to comply with local political pressure (both official and unofficial), so they are somewhat forced to. Do we really have any governments that will allow people to judge for themselves?
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.
It's not in the public interest if it's not authentified.
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.
In the US we have a long history of claiming that leaks are fabricated but I can’t think of a single one that actually has been. They just lie about it and then after the election admit they were lying.
Exact thing happened with wikileaks Hillary email leak and the Hunter Biden laptop.
I think the censorship of this JD Vance document is positive for the Harris campaign. The actual document is run-of-the-mill opposition research, but when some people unfamiliar with the contents hear about it being censored they will assume it's as scandalous as Hunter Biden's laptop.
That’s hardly a reasonable retort. The contents implicated Hunter Biden being used as a pay-to-play doorway to his father, who was running last cycle. Using a middle man doesn’t make it less corrupt.
> unless a version containing the unredacted SSN is floating around
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.
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)
> 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)
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.
I’m not thrilled corporations are so willing to engage in a coverup.
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.
This will likely increase engagement on Facebook, so it's just good business for them. There'll be more vicious social media "wars," more vicious comments, more toxicity. And while everyone is mad at each other, they'll be seeing ads.
I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies. It feels like they pick and choose when to enforce them, often times seemingly in line with their employees’ or leaders’ biases. For example what constitutes a ‘hacked’ item? The JD Vance dossier? Biden’s daughter’s journal? Trump’s tax returns? Hunter Biden’s laptop? Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks? Why are some of these given a pass and others censored? I don’t care for the completely subjective claim of “newsworthiness”, which is clearly a shameless excuse for biased application of policies.
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.
>I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies
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
Per the change log in https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/p... the bracketed language below, providing for exceptions for newsworthiness, was removed from Meta’s policy on June 27, 2024.
> {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.
If it's in the public interest, and it's true, then it's news and should be published regardless of who came up with it or their possible motives are for doing so.
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.
> and it's true
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/
Yeah, I agree. It's not the place of a social media platform to judge. There's no such thing as unbiased, neutral fact checkers. Readers will have to judge the truth of it for themselves.
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.
Social media platforms have to comply with local political pressure (both official and unofficial), so they are somewhat forced to. Do we really have any governments that will allow people to judge for themselves?
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.
It's not in the public interest if it's not authentified.
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.
In the US we have a long history of claiming that leaks are fabricated but I can’t think of a single one that actually has been. They just lie about it and then after the election admit they were lying.
Exact thing happened with wikileaks Hillary email leak and the Hunter Biden laptop.
On the other hand this type of censorship occurred in favor of the Biden candidacy in relation to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
What’s fair is fair, if they censor one set of controversial findings they ought censor the other.
I think the censorship of this JD Vance document is positive for the Harris campaign. The actual document is run-of-the-mill opposition research, but when some people unfamiliar with the contents hear about it being censored they will assume it's as scandalous as Hunter Biden's laptop.
Which office was Hunter Biden running for last cycle?
That’s hardly a reasonable retort. The contents implicated Hunter Biden being used as a pay-to-play doorway to his father, who was running last cycle. Using a middle man doesn’t make it less corrupt.
[dead]
> unless a version containing the unredacted SSN is floating around
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.
> If it's in the public interest
What's in this dossier that's in the public interest?
You seem oblivious to what doxing is.
> 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)
> 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)
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.
I’m not thrilled corporations are so willing to engage in a coverup.
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.
So what information have you read in the dossier that has helped you with your sober decision making?
For one, staunchly opposing corn subsidies isn't too popular with Iowa voters. I see why he wrote under a pseudonym.
http://frumforum.com/entry/norquist-loses-the-ethanol-subsid...
Fortunately Enron Musk is here to defend free speech.
Congrats to Mark “I don’t do politics anymore” Zuckerberg
Related:
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
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663051
link to pdf of dossier here
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/api/v1/file/fc39e78d-f510-49...
This will likely increase engagement on Facebook, so it's just good business for them. There'll be more vicious social media "wars," more vicious comments, more toxicity. And while everyone is mad at each other, they'll be seeing ads.
Who would collect such a dossier?
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.
Sharing facts about Republicans is elections interference in the same way that reality has a liberal bias.
I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies. It feels like they pick and choose when to enforce them, often times seemingly in line with their employees’ or leaders’ biases. For example what constitutes a ‘hacked’ item? The JD Vance dossier? Biden’s daughter’s journal? Trump’s tax returns? Hunter Biden’s laptop? Diplomatic cables from Wikileaks? Why are some of these given a pass and others censored? I don’t care for the completely subjective claim of “newsworthiness”, which is clearly a shameless excuse for biased application of policies.
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.
Well you will be happy to hear that Facebook scrapped their newsworthiness exception just in time for this.
>I really wish these companies would be consistent about their policies
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