The New York Post recently claimed to have obtained a large number of e-mails and photos from the personal laptop of Hunter Biden, the son of US presidential candidate Joe Biden, and published a report accordingly. The report focuses on Biden’s relationship with burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, which is an important reason why Joe Biden was repeatedly attacked during the presidential campaign. Journalists from other media questioned the charges and their credibility. Subsequently, a number of social media companies stepped in. < p > < p > after the New York Post report was published, Facebook reduced the exposure of this article on the ground that it needed platform partners to carry out verification. Twitter simply canceled all links to the article because it used information stolen by hackers and violated community policy. < / P > < p > in recent months, both websites have introduced stricter content auditing regulations. Last week, for example, they all blocked postings denying the Holocaust. However, it is still rare to “block” investigative news from well-known media. As a result, these “blocking” actions themselves quickly aroused widespread concern. < / P > < p > the matter is very complicated, and all the people involved seem to be tainted. But it also fully exposed the political discourse, social media and Internet information dissemination and other more grand problems. The report in the New York Post sent out an extremely dangerous signal. The sources of the documents are questionable and even politically motivated, especially Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has links with a Russian agent accused of interfering in the election. Although the negative investigation news is nothing new to the Republicans, and it is not only targeted at the Republicans, the so-called Biden e-mail may have been tampered with, and the source of the information may be improper, and it is not as simple as picking up a lost notebook. It may even have been carefully designed to intervene in the US election. Russian agents intervened in the 2016 presidential election by using social media and leaked information, which eventually helped trump win the election. The email of the National Committee may have been exposed by hackers funded by the Russian government, and the Russian Internet research agency has also created Facebook and twitter accounts that claim to represent us activists. Social media was widely criticized for not responding. If they don’t respond as soon as possible this time, they may be bombarded again for conniving at the New York Post article. Facebook is in a particularly awkward situation: crowdtangle’s data show that the report is particularly popular on the platform. < p > < p > 3. The influence of Facebook and twitter on online public opinion is disturbing. According to their respective policies, these two platforms can reasonably “block” a large number of influential and respected investigative news. It is not clear how Facebook’s fact auditors will verify such a report, written by a single news agency based on private documents it has access to. In fact, many of the media’s award-winning stories are based on documents provided by Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden as “hacked”. Legitimacy is not the only applicable standard. The policies of non-governmental enterprises will have many substantial impacts on people’s lives, and for many users, social media is almost equivalent to the Internet. So in this respect, we’re not talking about whether Facebook and twitter can “block” this New York Post article, but whether it’s good for users, journalists, democracy and the web itself. < p > < p > 6. Facebook’s “block” behavior does not conform to its policy of clearing up false information. The platform often downgrades false information, but this time it has reduced the exposure of the New York Post article in a preemptive way before it conducts a fact check. Although the company claimed that the report would be subject to a third-party fact check, as of the time this article was published, Facebook did not label the report as a fact check. At least twitter gives a clearer explanation. The site, which bans the release of information stolen by hackers, has previously used these rules to “block” links. The company also banned copying other people’s personal files from laptops without permission. Twitter then explained the decision, saying that the article contained “personal and private information such as email addresses and phone numbers, and therefore violated our rules.” At present, it is not clear what practical impact the “block” decision will have on trump and Biden’s campaign. Many people think that this will be counterproductive and contribute more exposure to the article, but it is difficult to judge whether people will really understand the negative news disclosed in the report. This may only increase ordinary Republicans’ distrust of social media, or it could quickly drown in the mass of news coverage during the campaign. < p > < p > 9. If Facebook and twitter are not the global mouthpiece of the Internet age, we can really simply think of them as ordinary websites with special community standards – if you don’t like them, you can read the new york post articles elsewhere. This is not the case. There have been attempts to establish alternatives, but the problem has not been solved. Although small platforms such as Parler and Gab have emerged, their development is frustrating: their content review is very bad, and seems to have become a place make complaints about Twitter and Facebook. Decentralized systems like mastodon, while attractive, are more confusing than centrally managed social networks. This may be a bad precedent. Relying solely on Facebook and Twitter to save the United States from false information or propaganda reinforces the idea that a small number of companies should be given almost absolute power to control what people express in public and in private. Obviously, Twitter’s “block” measures not only prohibit people from publishing the link publicly, but also from sharing the link through private messages. For the Internet, which is a vast sea of information sources, it seems that it is not a big deal if only a forum formulates such regulations. However, as these platforms become more and more powerful, the consequences seem to be more and more terrible. Honest and excellent journalists may also publish false information. Traditionally, if a media report errors or cite bad news sources, it will be disclosed by other journalists, industry experts or insiders with first-hand information. But social media companies don’t have these prerequisites, and the content review system doesn’t provide new information to help readers make judgments, and simply suppresses the original report. This will fundamentally disrupt the normal news reporting process. Routine news gathering and writing procedures may not be effective on the Internet. Attention is the “hard currency” of modern media. When you reveal that the content of an article is untrue, it is still spreading its original ideas in disguise. If people don’t believe your revealing article, whether the content of the original report is true or not, it will enhance people’s trust in the original report. Experts believe that the existence of this mode of communication has led to the widespread spread of more bizarre and unreliable content than the Biden / burisma report. It is naive to think that all news reports are equally credible. Whether or not Facebook and Twitter’s decisions in this regard are correct or not, censors usually have reasons to make subjective judgments beyond objective criteria based on the credibility of news reports, the historical records of publishers, or other factors. Social media audit is an expedient measure to deal with the system failure. Despite these problems, there are times when social media auditing seems to be the only option right now. The New York Post report reminds many commentators of the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s mail server. The scandal wasn’t too serious, but the traditional reporting process (and the help of politicians and the FBI) exaggerated it to nightmarish proportions. Ideally, conspiracy theories should be questioned by the news media, government agencies and other trusted political leaders, so as to curb the spread of such false information. However, these organizations lack enough credibility to effectively refute them. < / P > < p > when other measures fail, it’s not surprising that people expect Facebook or twitter to intervene on their own. Unfortunately, these platforms will not be the ultimate weapon to solve this problem because of high expectations. Spontaneous combustion at a Guangzhou Motor vehicle intersection and other traffic lights in Shenzhen