Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#291

Post by apple_innocent » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #258

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…

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…

100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting as middlemen, providing a so-called "platform". All in the interests of surveillance and selling advertising services.

Telcos and cable providers provide access to the medium, i.e. the internet, whereas the web is just one protocol that allows internet users to publish. Having websites with 100s of millions of people posting to them is no substitute for peer-to-peer protocols (private communication) or websites owned by news organisations that employ journalists (publication).

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#292

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

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?

Why does everyone feel the need to reach a mass audience?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#293

Post by pretendscholar » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

ska wrote: post #265

pretendscholar wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could read ancient aramaic because I'm pretty sure they don't literally mean its fine to lie about anything that doesn't involve someone living nearby.

I suspect even in the translation, neither "neighbor" nor "false witness" are meant in the way you are inferring. It should be probably read something like : don't swear to untrue things about your countrymen.

That's what I meant but I could have been less terse. It probably refers to the tribe of the Israelites so clan is probably closer than countrymen.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#294

Post by apple_innocent » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

ssakamoto wrote: post #283

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sci-Hub Is a PRIVATE Company. They can ban who they like. Period.

Sci-Hub is a company?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#295

Post by LdSGSgvupDV » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

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…

Plenty of derivative creation (ex: meme) probably has the copyright issue. Should twitter ban them all?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#296

Post by akerl_ » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

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…

230 isn’t a gift to Twitter, it’s a gift to us. A world where 230 was restricted in the way you describe wouldn’t see Twitter agree to one of your two modes. They’d opt to instead take a heavy hammer to anything even remotely objectionable, so-as to avoid having to deal with any of the controls on your list.

It’s also not clear to me why we’d expect a private company to have to answer to you or me or anybody else about decisions they make. We can choose to not use their services if we don’t agree with them (and many people on this site have done exactly that), but any rule that attempts to say “once you’re popular enough, your business has to follow somebody else’s rulebook for how you decide what content you must host” isn’t going to make sense to me.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#297

Post by root_axis » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

apple_innocent wrote: post #291

root_axis wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting as middlemen, providing a so-called "platform". All in the interests of surveillance and selling advertising services. Telcos and cable providers provide access to the medium, i.e. th…

In my view we should leave Section 230 alone, instead we should target the true incentive of bad behavior: the ad model. If it were illegal for companies that collect PII and track users across 3rd party sites to sell ad space on their platforms, all these companies would have to switch to a subscription model like Netflix, shifting the economic incentives to favor user retention rather than advertiser appetites. This means companies lose money when they ban people rather than make money by cutting their losses on viral bandwidth that's too toxic to monetize through ads.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#298

Post by FillardMillmore » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #258

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…

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…

> 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?

Just spitballing here, but doesn't it seem that with the way things are going, Twitter/Facebook will become a silo for those who hold more left-leaning views and Parler/Gab will become a silo for those with more right-leaning views? I understand that there are some who only want to see their preconceived notions reinforced, but for those who are actually interested in an open dialogue and open discussion, aren't we losing something important if this is the result? It would certainly cause an already polarized populace to become more polarized, would it not?

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#299

Post by apple_innocent » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #297

apple_innocent wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting as middlemen, providing a so-called "platform". All in the interests of surveillance and selling advertising services. Telcos and cable providers provide access to the medium, i.e. th…

In my view we should leave Section 230 alone, instead we should target the true incentive of bad behavior: the ad model . If it were illegal for companies that collect PII and track users across 3rd party sites to sell ad space on their platforms, all these companies would have to switch to a subscription model like Netflix, shifting the economic incentives to favor user retention rather than advertiser appetites. Th…

Sounds good to me. And what is the gratuitously complex instrumentation by which all of these companies collect personal data and track users: the so-called "modern" web browser. Authored by, you guessed it, companies who rely on advertisers. They purport to do many other things, wonderfully idealistic and technically impressive things, besides supporting web advertising. Those alleged pursuits seem to keep everyone distracted from their raison d'etre: Make money from advertising.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#300

Post by root_axis » Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 2:54 AM UTC

FillardMillmore wrote: post #298

root_axis wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Just spitballing here, but doesn't it seem that with the way things are going, Twitter/Facebook will become a silo for…

Politics is just a small part of twitter, the overwhelming majority of twitter content is music, sports, entertainment etc, so a potential silo effect isn't much to be concerned about. Most people just don't engage in politics on social media because it's a soul draining exercise and generally not time well spent unless you're a political junkie that enjoys exchanging barbs with friends and strangers online. So is it possible some of the conservative political content on twitter might wane? Sure, but that's just a fact of life, some communities online just lean a certain direction. Finally, conservatives are not in exile from social media, just about every prominent conservative has an active twitter account with millions of followers and there are millions of conservatives posting all over twitter right now and this is something that can be trivially verified. The bottom line is that none of this is a big deal, it's politics flavored tabloid gossip.