The journalist here is not being entirely truthful. While much of the information that the campaign used to vet JD Vance was public, not all of it was, and the internal comments are definitely not public information.
It's a bit like saying hacked internal emails are public if they are discussing public topics.
The reason the media generally doesn't publish hacked documents is so they don't create an incentive for people to hack documents. It's the same reason why many media companies won't publish pictures and sometimes names of mass shooters and child suicides.
You're free to do it. But many media companies don't do it for legitimate practical, ethical, and moral reasons.
You're free to do it. But many media companies don't do it for legitimate practical, ethical, and moral reasons.
But Twitter’s current owner has explicitly attacked the media for exactly this reason, and has claimed repeatedly and self-aggrandizingly to value free speech above such concerns.
All he had to do was redact things like his home address, phone number and social security number. Doing so wouldn't have affected any of the other content and also wouldn't have run afoul of Twitters policies.
Talk about grandstanding over nothing. Then again being an ass gets you more attention so mission accomplished!
He attacked them for censoring opposing viewpoints for political and ideological reasons. That's a far cry from hacked personal information. I admit, it is a bit of a grey line, but neither of these cases are particularly close to the line.
He attacked Twitter in the past for banning someone for the exact same reason.
Musk was one of the people who was unhappy with the decision to ban links to the Post’s story. “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk wrote of the decision on the story in April 2022. He even invited former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi to examine internal documents showing how Twitter handled the decision. (In the course of tweeting his conclusions, Taibbi exposed the email addresses of Dorsey and Representative Ro Khanna.)
Info from Hunter Biden’s laptop was a focus of the “Twitter Files” and explicitly involved information being taken unethically and possibly illegally from a laptop at a repair shop.
Comments
The journalist here is not being entirely truthful. While much of the information that the campaign used to vet JD Vance was public, not all of it was, and the internal comments are definitely not public information.
It's a bit like saying hacked internal emails are public if they are discussing public topics.
The reason the media generally doesn't publish hacked documents is so they don't create an incentive for people to hack documents. It's the same reason why many media companies won't publish pictures and sometimes names of mass shooters and child suicides.
You're free to do it. But many media companies don't do it for legitimate practical, ethical, and moral reasons.
But Twitter’s current owner has explicitly attacked the media for exactly this reason, and has claimed repeatedly and self-aggrandizingly to value free speech above such concerns.
All he had to do was redact things like his home address, phone number and social security number. Doing so wouldn't have affected any of the other content and also wouldn't have run afoul of Twitters policies.
Talk about grandstanding over nothing. Then again being an ass gets you more attention so mission accomplished!
He attacked them for censoring opposing viewpoints for political and ideological reasons. That's a far cry from hacked personal information. I admit, it is a bit of a grey line, but neither of these cases are particularly close to the line.
He attacked Twitter in the past for banning someone for the exact same reason.
Musk was one of the people who was unhappy with the decision to ban links to the Post’s story. “Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate,” Musk wrote of the decision on the story in April 2022. He even invited former Rolling Stone pundit Matt Taibbi to examine internal documents showing how Twitter handled the decision. (In the course of tweeting his conclusions, Taibbi exposed the email addresses of Dorsey and Representative Ro Khanna.)
Yes. WaPo didn’t post the contents of the laptop. They reported on the fbi report that hunters laptop was turned in with incriminating information.
It’s the difference between reporting on a hack (though Hunters laptop wasn’t hacked) and releasing the hack.
Info from Hunter Biden’s laptop was a focus of the “Twitter Files” and explicitly involved information being taken unethically and possibly illegally from a laptop at a repair shop.
Silly me. I thought the reason why the media did not publish hacked documents it's because it is difficult to verify their provenance.
It's political, which means even if it's unethical, and maybe even illegal, some people will feel it's deserved and support it.