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

251–260 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#251

Post by stjohnswarts »

apple_innocent wrote: post #223
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.

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. They have to pick one or the other. The arguments I am seeing online are folks who have chosen one or the other and are arguing from their…

I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#252

Post by stjohnswarts »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #168
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 ap…

It's simple, they own the platform, they get to make the call who is on it, including Presidents.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#253

Post by spothedog1 »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #245

GoDaddy booted AR15.com, it's becoming clear the FAANG companies are flexing their power. If you're not on the corporate approved list, get across the tracks. I'm appalled at the extremist stuff, such as Parler hosted, but this path is lined with primroses.

GoDaddy is a FAANG?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#254

Post by tptacek »

Karunamon wrote: post #249
tptacek wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone wants another long thread recapitulating the whole debate about Twitter's obligations to to society; they can just read the thousands of HN comments that have been written in the last week about it. What I will say is, however you hope to resolve this problem, eliminating the 230 protections is probably not the right way to go about it if you want providers like Twitter to be less intrusive, or f…

What do you think about not nuking 230, but making its protections reliant on specific conduct? We can sidestep the 1A issue altogether since these companies would do anything to avoid being held responsible for the libelous, harassing, defamatory, threatening and sometimes terroristic content that their users post every day. That is nothing short of a gift given by the government, and it can be modified or restricte…

I think policy intervention that is backstopped by threats to remove provider liability protections is going to backfire, because when you get when providers are liable is radically more intrusive moderation, not less moderation.

As a matter of principle, any regulatory regime that would put HN as Dan moderates it at risk is bad, and what you're proposing would seem to threaten HN. All your bullets here seem like things that will pull providers into litigation.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#255

Post by gpanders »

49531 wrote: post #199

I think the general discourse around high profile account banning raises some interesting questions. I've seen a lot of people in my (generally liberal) social bubble carry the line that Twitter, as a private corporation, has the right to ban accounts for whatever reason they see fit. While technically this is true, should it be? Is there a threshold where a service becomes more of a public good than a private enterp…

What would a nationalized, public version of Twitter even look like? Every citizen is granted and guaranteed the right to spew their vitriol publicly where everyone can see it?

I agree with you about ISPs, but I don't see the sense in the argument that I keep seeing about designating social media as a utility or public good. What would that even mean?

Twitter continues to shore up ill will from all sides of the political spectrum. Mastodon, Matrix, and other decentralized, federated communication platforms are increasingly in a good position to put themselves forward as the actual solution to this problem.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#256

Post by gpanders »

specktr wrote: post #200
young_unixer wrote: post #52

100th reminder to stop using Twitter and to stop acting like it's an acceptable medium of communication.

What’s your alternative method to reach a mass audience?

Is our collective imagination really so stunted that we cannot conceive of what the world was like before Twitter existed?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#257

Post by Karunamon »

tptacek wrote: post #254
Karunamon wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about not nuking 230, but making its protections reliant on specific conduct? We can sidestep the 1A issue altogether since these companies would do anything to avoid being held responsible for the libelous, harassing, defamatory, threatening and sometimes terroristic content that their users post every day. That is nothing short of a gift given by the government, and it can be modified or restricte…

I think policy intervention that is backstopped by threats to remove provider liability protections is going to backfire, because when you get when providers are liable is radically more intrusive moderation, not less moderation. As a matter of principle, any regulatory regime that would put HN as Dan moderates it at risk is bad, and what you're proposing would seem to threaten HN. All your bullets here seem like thi…

It would make sense to combine these ideas with a circuit breaker that only kicks in once you have a certain MAU count.

Having it apply to every forum everywhere would suck and be unworkable, but once you're at Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. levels of exposure, there are a different set of interests and responsibilities to society in play.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#258

Post by root_axis »

apple_innocent wrote: post #223
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.

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. They have to pick one or the other. The arguments I am seeing online are folks who have chosen one or the other and are arguing from their…

Websites are not common carriers.

>What is their justifcation for suspension.

I don't see why they should need a justification. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people should be entitled to it. It makes no sense that an arbitrary MAU count suddenly rescinds the property rights of the people who pay money to keep the servers running, as well as to develop and maintain the software. Further, I don't see any benefit to society in policies that might encourage social media use, and speaking economically when these large platforms boot people off it actually increases competition and decreases their dominance because it creates a market opportunity for competitors, exactly like what happened with Parler. Suddenly, nobody seems to care that a conservative competitor to AWS is getting a huge account, shouldn't that be pereceived as a good thing? Why are the people who get banned so insistent on using services they claim are inherently unfair to them? Why not support companies that share your values?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#259

Post by selectout »

spothedog1 wrote: post #253
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #245

GoDaddy booted AR15.com, it's becoming clear the FAANG companies are flexing their power. If you're not on the corporate approved list, get across the tracks. I'm appalled at the extremist stuff, such as Parler hosted, but this path is lined with primroses.

GoDaddy is a FAANG?

Flywheel A2 AccuWeb Nexcess GoDaddy

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#260

Post by Mountain_Skies »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #251
apple_innocent wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. They have to pick one or the other. The arguments I am seeing online are folks who have chosen one or the other and are arguing from their…

I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.

Who did Sci-Hub advocate for assassination? What violence did they try to incite? What treasonous act did they commit? This conversation is about twitter nuking Sci-Hub. I understand the events you are referring to but you cannot use them as justification for actions like suspending Sci-Hub.
Post reply on HN