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

161–170 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#161

Post by tptacek »

splistud wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything the court has done since Marsh v Alabama has walked that decision back, and I think you'll have a hard time finding legal experts to back the interpretation that Twitter owns the obligations of a public square. We've had threads about it on HN, but it's also (for obvious reasons) come up recently, and here's Ken White citing a recent SCOTUS decision knocking this idea down: https://twitter.com/Popehat/stat…

I wholly agree with you. They do, however, own the obligations of a public forum if that is how they ask to be regulated. They are playing cute with political speech. They aren't publishing in the traditional sense. But heavy curation of independent content is (at their volume) publishing - without the regulation accorded publishers. They are, by their actions, espousing certain political ideas by only allowing those…

I don't think you'll find a lot of lawyers who specialize in speech and 230 that agree with this interpretation either, and it would have extremely wide-ranging consequences for the entire Internet that the fiercest advocates of this position would not like at all.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#162

Post by splistud »

noncoml wrote: post #114

Instead of arguing who, when and why should Twitter ban someone, we should be trying to find a way to stop depending on Twitter, FB and Google for our voices to be heard. Banning Trump may seem like a good idea in vacuum, but it's a slippery slope. And before you say that the cases are different, my point is that it shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide. By supporting Trump's ban, we support Twitter to be the arbitrat…

They are a public company (private in the sense I know you mean it) and should be treated as such.

They are a public company that publishes certain opinions by allowing individuals who are willing to espouse those opinions access, while not allowing others.

They are a public company that blocks other opinions from being heard (on other platforms) in association with other technology giants, by removing the ability for other private or public corps any access to meaningful internet services unless they do not stay in the opinion lanes the giants are comfortable with.

They are a public company that is using their position and status to shape public discourse in the United States, and they should absolutely be treated as such. Here's hoping.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#163

Post by garaetjjte »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #98
bArray wrote: post #74

I for one am glad that our new moral enforcers are keeping us safe from the possibility of free academic knowledge.

Moral and legal are different. I think Sci-Hub is ethical. I'm under no illusions that this somehow makes it legal. Sci-Hub explicitly bills itself as a "pirate website." Twitter's rules explicitly ban both copyright violation and illegal activities. Therefore Sci-Hub is violation of Twitter's rules. Twitter may well be very selective in their enforcement, but the fact that Sci-Hub is violating Twitter's rules is not…

Did Sci-Hub Twitter account shared copyrighted material actually?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#164

Post by ardy42 »

kennywinker wrote: post #112
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.

For that matter, should convicted murderers get their accounts suspended? I think not solely on the grounds that they’ve committed murder - but maybe if they are using their platform to cause further harm.

> For that matter, should convicted murderers get their accounts suspended? I think not solely on the grounds that they’ve committed murder - but maybe if they are using their platform to cause further harm.

On a related note, Facebook policy bans sex offenders from having accounts at all, regardless of what they do with them:

https://www.facebook.com/help/210081519032737:

> Convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to use Facebook. If you've seen an account that may belong to a convicted sex offender, please report it to us.

Not sure about the other social media networks.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#165

Post by orionblastar »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #98
bArray wrote: post #74

I for one am glad that our new moral enforcers are keeping us safe from the possibility of free academic knowledge.

Moral and legal are different. I think Sci-Hub is ethical. I'm under no illusions that this somehow makes it legal. Sci-Hub explicitly bills itself as a "pirate website." Twitter's rules explicitly ban both copyright violation and illegal activities. Therefore Sci-Hub is violation of Twitter's rules. Twitter may well be very selective in their enforcement, but the fact that Sci-Hub is violating Twitter's rules is not…

What about The Pirate Bay account? Should it be banned as well?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#166

Post by MikeUt »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #151
MikeUt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live in a town with no fresh water, and the only drinks available are sold by the local store. This store does not sell bottled water, wine, orange juice, milk, or tea. The only drinks it sells are Coca-Cola and Pepsi. But if you don't like Coca-Cola, just buy Pepsi - how silly it would be to complain of monopoly when you still have a choice!

Who is Twitter in your analogy? The store? Then your analogy is flawed because there are other big stores that sell basically the same stuff and even some small shops. Not a monopoly. If all of them choose not to sell that product that doesn't mean anything. They don't have any obligation to carry whatever you want. Man, people are being absurd about this whole thing.

The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed.

If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms).

How successful will such movies be? Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#167

Post by djrogers »

And yet there are still accounts for torrent sites (@tpb is alive and well last I heard) and other sites that allow for the distribution of copyrighted material.

Something is fishy here, and I really really really don't see the motivation for Twitter to have done this by itself. If this were part of a sweeping crackdown on accounts that promote 'piracy' it'd make sense, but it's not.

Feels more like "a board member has a friend who made a phone call" kind of thing.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#168

Post by davrosthedalek »

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.

It all boils down to this:

a) Should twitter be allowed to cancel accounts who harm twitter?

If yes: b) Who decides which accounts harm twitter? If the answer is "twitter", then they have effectively the right to terminate any account at their will. I don't know what other answer is possible for b) except maybe "the courts", and I'm not sure I like that one.

If the answer to a) is no, for which companies does this apply? Must every company work with every potential customer? Who decides which companies must?

Going through the options, I only see viable: twitter can ban whomever they like, for whatever reason, except for the usual exceptions (religion, race etc).

I wish they wouldn't though.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#169

Post by Triv888 »

djrogers wrote: post #167

And yet there are still accounts for torrent sites (@tpb is alive and well last I heard) and other sites that allow for the distribution of copyrighted material. Something is fishy here, and I really really really don't see the motivation for Twitter to have done this by itself. If this were part of a sweeping crackdown on accounts that promote 'piracy' it'd make sense, but it's not. Feels more like "a board member h…

Yeah they really pick and choose what they ban based on "personal opinion".

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#170

Post by kristofferR »

ardy42 wrote: post #164
kennywinker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that matter, should convicted murderers get their accounts suspended? I think not solely on the grounds that they’ve committed murder - but maybe if they are using their platform to cause further harm.

> For that matter, should convicted murderers get their accounts suspended? I think not solely on the grounds that they’ve committed murder - but maybe if they are using their platform to cause further harm. On a related note, Facebook policy bans sex offenders from having accounts at all, regardless of what they do with them: https://www.facebook.com/help/210081519032737 : > Convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to…

That's pretty messed up. You as a 14 year old send a nude picture to your 15 year old boyfriend and suddenly you're banned from Facebook from life?

Frankly the whole situation in the US is messed up, punishment should be limited to whatever the court decides.

Post reply on HN