They’re a private company, Sci-Hub has to make their own social media service
Twitter is a public company, no?
Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
131–140 of 335 posts
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#132I'm not very familiar with Sci-Hub, but I doubt they were uploading pirated content to be hosted on Twitter, so what would their violation be? Incitement to commit copyright violation?
Ah yes and torrent sites don't host any content either :P
Not really the same thing unless they were linking to particular copyright works you could find elsewhere, is it?
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#133[deleted]
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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's CEO Jack Dorsey has repeatedly been summoned before Congress to be dressed-down by legislators, who regularly threaten to "do something" that increases Twitter's liabilities or otherwise encumbers their business, if Twitter doesn't change their internal policies. In some cases, it's been suggested that discretionary government powers under existing laws could be used to reward or punish Twitter. Twitter's b…
I wonder how he has handled the shutdowns, at a personal level (photo from november):
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/jack-d...
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#135Twitter flexed, everyone flinched. Expecting more flexing is where I am. They say the slippery slope is a fallacy, but I am starting to think of that as a reflex saying when someone gets caught shoving the Overton Window.
Slippery slope is a fallacy when no evidence that the slope is actually slipper is presented. If someone were to, for example, highlight unchecked incentives Twitter has to further censor then that'd be a valid argument.
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#136Meanwhile they’re still hosting all sorts of accounts of hackers, jail breakers and many people obviously breaking the law. It’s a slippery slope and they’ve started slipping. Now how do you stop?
You can't, someone will always be complaining about "X didn't get banned, buy Y did".
The only solution is for Twitter to say "You all are right, our moderation policy isn't fair it leans to the left more than the right, but we think Twitter is a great product that provides a lot of value. If you disagree and want to leave, we understand"
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
i think there may be some conflating of "very powerful" (?) with monopoly here.
it does not take much effort to realize that twitter is not a monopoly in the space of speech platforms. it's not clear to me that twitter is particularly unique as a speech platform: blogs minimally could serve this role, as could mastodon. more controversially perhaps: facebook/instagram.
contrast that with a situation where you literally /cannot/ get utilities delivered to your house because the utility company doesn't like you: seems like a fairly stark difference to me.
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#138Twitter 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.
Twitter did NOTHING as Trump basically spend the last 4 year inciting a mob on their platform, threatening people, and committing HUNDREDS of violations that would get you and I kicked off.
THEN ... when there is a literal armed insurrection against the capital where TWO police officers died and 5 people total, and they had pipe bombs and hand cuffs to kidnap people, they waited until FRIDAY after the markets closed to ban Trump from the platform.
Twitter's behavior in this entire thing is beyond unacceptable and borders on treasonous.
I really think everyone needs to be calling for @jack to resign.
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#139This is eyebrow raising but hardly the news to lose any sleep over. If for example Google were to unilaterally purge sci-hub from its search results (for “greater good”, not as a result of however questionable but legal-at-this-point takedown request) that would be a serious escalation.
Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub
#140Twitter 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 is a communication monopoly.