Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#121

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #118
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

In what world is Twitter a monopoly? Its market cap is $36B. That's 2X less than Snap and 20X less than Facebook.

It's crazy isn't it? This community thinks Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors, ditto Twitter and Facebook.

Microsoft isn't though. Not because they don't completely own the Desktop PC market just as they ever did, but because that market is less relevant than it used to be for web devs.

I live in a strange time.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#122

Post by splistud »

stale2002 wrote: post #60
memer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Twitter's own servers and they can choose who can use them or not. Permitted speech on the legal scope does not matter when talking about businesses.

> Permitted speech on the legal scope does not matter when talking about businesses. Sure it matters. It matters because a bunch of people want businesses to allow all legal speech on their platform. And this group of people is growing in support, and they might eventually get enough support to force these business to do so, using legislative changes such as required these major companies to follow common carrier law…

It also matters in the sense that one can't avoid certain regulation by claiming to be a public forum rather than a publisher while not being a public forum at all

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#123

Post by sitzkrieg »

mc32 wrote: post #104
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

Agree. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation. Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended? This is ridiculous.

at the end of the day twitter has the right to close whatever account they so choose

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#124

Post by koolk3ychain »

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm a democrat who voted for Biden and doesn't question the outcome of the election. That said, our society does not need this kind of gerrymandering in our online discourse. People need to forget politics for a second and realize the true harm companies like this are inflicting by effectively playing god.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#125

Post by a1369209993 »

markus_zhang wrote: post #64
memer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Twitter's own servers and they can choose who can use them or not. Permitted speech on the legal scope does not matter when talking about businesses.

I'd argue once X amount of users use your service you are sort of public service company already. You can't use "oh we are a business so we can do anything we want" to defend yourself about that.

It's a little more subtle than that - more strength of network effects than mere number of users - but pretty much.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#126

Post by splistud »

russell_h wrote: post #38
HarryHirsch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same. If he is seditious you can get a court to issue an injunction very quickly, and if he isn't a private entity has no issue determining what a politician can say. As a German one thinks different about free speech than do most Americans. We know all too well where too much free speech leads and when in doubt let the courts decide because we love public peace. Putting a muzzle on someone is interfering with po…

To be clear, there is no serious interpretation of the US Constitution required here: Twitter absolutely has the right to determine what shows up on their website. For the government to require Twitter to publish the opinions of the president would be a very clear violation of Twitter’s own first amendment rights. There could be more nuance involved if, for example, there were a credible claim of racial discriminatio…

Twitter also has the right to avoid scrutiny as a publisher by being a public forum. They are not acting as a public forum, however. This isn't going to be straightforward. Laws (or regullations), or Twitter's behavior, will have to change.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#127

Post by missosoup »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #121
bananabreakfast wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is Twitter a monopoly? Its market cap is $36B. That's 2X less than Snap and 20X less than Facebook.

It's crazy isn't it? This community thinks Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors, ditto Twitter and Facebook. Microsoft isn't though. Not because they don't completely own the Desktop PC market just as they ever did, but because that market is less relevant than it used to be for web devs. I live in a strange time.

They are monopolies within a set of respective markets/niches when it comes to speech platforms.

GP's point was that private individuals have the power to arbitrarily deplatform speech they don't like, no court order required. The counter argument is 'go find another speech platform', but it doesn't work, because speech platforms have been monopolised by a single-digit handful of individuals.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#128

Post by mc32 »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #123
mc32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation. Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended? This is ridiculous.

at the end of the day twitter has the right to close whatever account they so choose

Legally, yes. But given the prominence and importance it has with regards to disseminating news and opinion, I think it’s their responsibility to take their obligation seriously.

The phones at one time we’re not “utilities”. Social media may become the next regulated utility given its importance.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#130

Post by ballenf »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #123
mc32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation. Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended? This is ridiculous.

at the end of the day twitter has the right to close whatever account they so choose

Yes, and people have to right to tell random strangers to fuck off and give kids the middle finger.

Doesn't mean we can't try to talk someone out of doing that or discuss how such behavior makes society slightly worse.

Post reply on HN