Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> the public officials involved mean it has a clear public interest.

It's clear only to you. You cannot normally legally publish hacked or stolen photos of celebrities. The personal, intimate, or family photos of Hunter Biden almost certainly do not meet the bar for public interest.

Twitter is not liable here. But as a private company they're allowed to have a policy against linking to hacked or stolen material on their platform. It's the NY Post that's in a grey area.

> Of course your original comment said nothing about the accuracy of the reporting and instead only made the claim that there was a legal gray area around publishing hacked materials like these, which is simply not true.

My original comment was in response to someone saying Twitter blocked it because it was Russian propaganda, which is simply not true.




> It's clear only to you.

Really? Who would be the judge of that? The suppression itself is hard evidence to the contrary.


That's circular reasoning. According to Twitter's statement, they blocked directly linking to hacked materials (which includes personal, intimate photos of Hunter Biden). They haven't suppressed any other discussion on Hunter Biden or the contents of that laptop.

Maybe you don't believe Twitter. Maybe Twitter suppressed the story for political reasons and you feel that proves the hacked content is of public interest. But if Twitter was honest then their policy is just to not allow direct links to any hacked or stolen photos. It doesn't mean they're important.

How are personal photos of Hunter Biden with his family important to public interest?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: