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

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#311

Post by userbinator »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #201
jolmg wrote: post #17

To see the tweets: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://twitter.com/Sci_Hub I should donate more to the Internet Archive. I hate how so much history can just disappear at a whim if it weren't for them.

How can you see Tweets there? When I try to open some past snapshots, they just render ajaxy "Something went wrong". (I'm surprised Twitter is archivable in the first place, the whole thing being a pile of JS crap.)

I'm surprised Twitter is archivable in the first place, the whole thing being a pile of JS crap

Up until a few months ago, you could still get the old UI if you used a suitable UA header, and until more recently, the "plain HTML" mobile.twitter.com version was available.

But with those shutdown, they are definitely trying to make it hard to consume their content in anything other than their "approved" way, which makes one wonder...

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#312

Post by [deleted] »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #308
apple_innocent wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication. Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier…

> If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to modera…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#313

Post by catlifeonmars »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #308
apple_innocent wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication. Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier…

> If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to modera…

That would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#314

Post by missosoup »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #160
missosoup wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. Twitter is one of a small handful of platforms where an individual can share an idea and have that idea spread - as long as the owners of Twitter don't disagree with that idea. It's not because twitter is special, it's because it was one of the first to achieve a sufficiently large userba…

> This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. No, it's saying you're welcome to practice free speech, you just can't borrow my megaphone to do it. How hard is this to understand? You are not entitled to use other people's property without their consent. If twitter was actually the only way to communicate with people on the internet…

Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience.

Yes, you can make your own blog and post whatever you like on it (actually these days even that is questionable with cloud vendors deplatforming blogs they don't like), but the chances of your speech reaching a wide audience are millions of times smaller than if you just posted on one of those established platforms and your speech was allowed to spread without censorship.

The problem with your analogy is that your megaphone makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to have one. This was not the case in the early days of the internet prior to these hyper centralised platforms emerging. This is where both the law and just general public mindset hasn't yet caught up with the implications of modern social media. In business, we have anti-trust laws specifically for this scenario. In information and social media, we have nothing.

A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#315

Post by nathias »

takeda wrote: post #269
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…

you are mixing up net neutrality and a platform. Net Neutrality ensures that ISP do what the name says, providing Internet service without interfering with it, like restricting which sites you can visit. A platform like twitter, facebook, parler. Is something that was created from scratch and is owned by these companies. As of now it's not their duty to allow everyone in. And enforcing it is stepping on their freedom…

Platforms have been exempted from being sued for content as they were claiming neutrality and now that they are monopolies bigger than most countries they are starting to employ their own moderation and censorship. We should either break them up and make competition possible or enforce their neutrality.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#316

Post by unityByFreedom »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #313
unityByFreedom wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to modera…

That would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.

The point here is to expand the number of social media sites from the handful we have to several more rather than collapsing them into a single state-owned entity.

And, we can't just snap our fingers to make that happen. True competition comes from separately owned, competing services.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#318

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#319

Post by apple_innocent »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #316
catlifeonmars wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.

The point here is to expand the number of social media sites from the handful we have to several more rather than collapsing them into a single state-owned entity. And, we can't just snap our fingers to make that happen. True competition comes from separately owned, competing services.

A superior outcome would be OTT peer-to-peer communication, with small groups of peers forming their own mini-networks potentially linking with others if there is mutual interest. The massive groups that form via today's internet do not reflect human nature in the real world. People usually are only part of small groups, family, friends, colleagues, teammates, etc. People usually keep the groups isolated from one another, for the most part. The internet has been hijacked to become primarily a broadcast medium that serves the interests of advertisers, marketers, promoters, etc., those who deal in hype, and a relatively small number of companies (middlemen) that enable them. The hijackers all want internet users to join large groups that can be targeted through a central point with commercial/political mesaging.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#320

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

Twitter wants to be relevant infrastructure and ironically Trump gave most way to that.

Personal opinion is that the best solution would be to dumb Twitter for any discussions, but especially political ones.

Post reply on HN