31–40 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is banning twitter because China wants to control who sees what on the platform, which I'm presuming Twitter has refused to do. There's nothing visionary about this. It's called censorship.
I'm pretty sure that's what Turkey is doing here too. This is Turkey catching up to Twitter. Let's hope the West doesn't try to catch up as well.
I agree with Turkey's position here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China's policy of locking US companies out of the Chinese market looks prudent in hindsight. Exactly. I mean, depending on their market penetration, social media platforms are not just a mirror but an active tool for analysis and influence of people's opinions. Age groups, clicks, hash tags, links, time of posting, etc. Why on Earth would governments leave such power in the hands of the free enterprise? Even in the…
Thats what was said about Wall St after many a blunder. They are still raking it in. Do you know why?
About social media, I think it's mostly a generational issue in governance. Those generations in power are still very little informed about the immense power of social media and are only now beginning to see its effects.
The congress hearings of Zuckerberg, Doursey and Pichai, and the kind of questions being asked there seem to point in that direction.
Needless to say, regulation isn't quite in the best interest of intelligence orgs. More so on the West that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China's policy of locking US companies out of the Chinese market looks prudent in hindsight. Exactly. I mean, depending on their market penetration, social media platforms are not just a mirror but an active tool for analysis and influence of people's opinions. Age groups, clicks, hash tags, links, time of posting, etc. Why on Earth would governments leave such power in the hands of the free enterprise? Even in the…
Thats what was said about Wall St after many a blunder. They are still raking it in. Do you know why?
After all that happened, Now it makes sense for a country to have a grasp over the communication of its citizens. That’s said, the primary use is expected to be control of journalism on Youtube. After Erdogan took over almost all of the media, many of the fired journalists started Youtube channels and got more popular than the media Erdogan has a hold on. He now wants to impose the same controls that he has over TV c…
It should be noted that the US has the same double standards, but enforced by silicon valley corps themselves in union. Moral of the story: Power currupts.
Turkish government's intention here is getting content that criticise them removed, by asking to representative in Turkey who by the way must be a Turkish citizen, not just a person from any nationality who can speak Turkish. So that, they can apply Turkish law to this person if they would like to. If Youtube doesn't remove the content, possibly as they did with TV they are going to fine them.
I don't see this model working for long time and expecting most of the companies to pull their representatives soon, if they open the door of every country getting content removed however they like, I'm sure there will be other countries who would want that and it would be terrible for freedom of speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turkey has around 80milion people as its population and an elected government. I think these people have the right to summon an ambassador from not just twitter but all big tech giants.
Isn't it a bit of an admission though? Global corps are effectively as powerful as most nation-states now, to the point you need "ambassadors". I expect the next step will be to agree on a Geneva-like convention on this sort of diplomatic mission, where the local representative is guaranteed immunity in exchange for accepting equal representation of a country in the corporation.
I agree with Turkey's position here.
Turkey’s position is that they need to have control over the news, the press, and other communication channels, the better to strangle dissent and effect purges.
I agree with Turkey's position here.
You assume Turkey has fair, not corrupted justice system, I can assure you that that's not the case. At the moment, it's quite political and almost impossible to rule anything against AKP or someone they have working relationship. So, a business man who has good relationship with the government can do something terrible and can easily get content that exposes this removed. This is not OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be noted that the US has the same double standards, but enforced by silicon valley corps themselves in union. Moral of the story: Power currupts.
It's not the same thing. As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models. Turkish government's intention here is getting content that criticise them rem…
That's both optimistic and naive given that TOS can change at any time, and interpretation aren't subject to appeal with a transparent process.