Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#101

Post by golondon »

antibuddy wrote: post #50
golondon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... 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. The part with "in union" is not really explained by ML models. These de-platforming actions are done manually and apparently one-sided. Just for fun you can look up why Trump was banned on Twitter and see Khamenei's worst tweets from months prior, that were still up a week a…

Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#102

Post by TameAntelope »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #95
TameAntelope wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm angry that people like you continue to willfully misrepresent how the Internet works, and I'm having a hard time controlling that anger. I'm sorry about that. Proximity on the Internet matters if you're trying to start the next Twitter. It does not matter if you're trying to exercise your right to freely speak. There are plenty of ways in which you can make your voice very vocally heard that don't involve the Int…

It isn’t anyone else’s problem that you can’t control your anger. Yes, clearly places like Speaker’s Corner exist in real life. That is not up for debate. The issue is that an extremely small amount of American corporations are allowed to decide what is deemed acceptable to discuss online. If deemed unacceptable, you are relegated to the outskirts and often denied access to say, credit. (This has actually happened.)…

"The issue is that an extremely small amount of American corporations are allowed to decide what is deemed acceptable to discuss online."

This is simply not true. This is not what's happening, and again I am trying to understand a reason why you think this is the case.

"If deemed unacceptable, you are relegated to the outskirts and often denied access to say, credit."

I'm sorry again, but this is also not only untrue, but betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. Any Internet accessible website is accessible from any browser at any time from anywhere in the world (excepting actual censorship taking place in some countries, e.g. the Great Firewall of China). This is what your "freedom of expression" guarantees, not access to the popular pages on the Internet.

The city center example is completely wrong because it imposes a false difficulty at visiting a restaurant outside of the city center that the restaurant cannot overcome. This is precisely the opposite of true, since any browser in the world can visit any Internet accessible website with the same level of effort. Your restaurant can still be walked into at an instant, anywhere in the world. Accessibility is a fixed value, and it's nearly zero.

Discovery of your speech is not a human right, however. I'm sorry if that violates your expectations, but it's true. You aren't guaranteed a right to be heard, only a right to speak, and on the Internet you will always have that right, again due to how the Internet works. It's a global network of interconnected computers, there will always be a place to express your thoughts and provide them to the world, one URL away.

I'm trying to give this more thought as our argument gets longer, as per HN guidelines, but I'm having a hard time keeping that goal clear. I would appreciate it if you tried to meet me somewhere in the middle here, to try and understand why I'm explaining things the way that I am.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#103

Post by lotsofpulp »

trident5000 wrote: post #69
dastx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between governments, the people that are in theory employed by the people, silence individuals, compared to some company not wanting individuals' speech on their platform. If a company banned me from saying x, I can in theory go to another platform and say the same thing. Failing that, I can build my own site. There are a handful of things I can do to say x. Failing a digital platform, I can…

We just witnessed that you actually cant do any of those things (build your own platform that has real reach), there is no free market. And now with where we are, what difference does it actually make when you think about it? In both scenarios its a handful of people dictating the speech of billions, on the private side they’re not even elected. The ideal scenario is that there is a free market of social media who ca…

>We just witnessed that you actually cant do any of those things (build your own platform that has real reach), there is no free market.

I am witnessing the reality that it’s never been easier and cheaper in the history of the world to reach almost everyone in the world within seconds.

It’s extremely easy to build a website, host it, have people type in a few letters and numbers, and “reach” each other. It’s never been easier, or cheaper. It’s as free market as it gets.

Insufficient amount of people may be interested in that, but that has nothing to do with the mechanisms in place that can allow you to reach people, which don’t need to include Amazon, Google, or any other host.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#104

Post by daemoon »

vbezhenar wrote: post #98
golondon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I read Twitter's reasoning for banning Trump. Basically they banned him for tweets: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” I don't see any…

Yeah, it just doesn't make sense. When I blatantly ignore all of his tweets claiming Biden lost, he won the election and that massive election fraud took place, I just can't understand why they would ban him!

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#105

Post by dmingod666 »

jtdev wrote: post #38
fennecfoxen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As opposed to one class controlling what news reaches the populace, e.g., Twitter suppressing Hunter Biden story from NY Post?

Keep this in mind. Whenever you are the oppressor you have to either justify it as 'just moral retribution' or the violence as a 'very small and necessary evil' to prevent a huge catastrophe.. Both sides in the US have the same thinking. They are the good guys no matter what...

IMO, if you can throw 2 nuclear bombs on cities and still think of yourself as the good guys in that context.. I'm sure you can do anything you want and still think of yourself as good guys...

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#106

Post by ceilingcorner »

TameAntelope wrote: post #102
ceilingcorner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t anyone else’s problem that you can’t control your anger. Yes, clearly places like Speaker’s Corner exist in real life. That is not up for debate. The issue is that an extremely small amount of American corporations are allowed to decide what is deemed acceptable to discuss online. If deemed unacceptable, you are relegated to the outskirts and often denied access to say, credit. (This has actually happened.)…

"The issue is that an extremely small amount of American corporations are allowed to decide what is deemed acceptable to discuss online." This is simply not true. This is not what's happening, and again I am trying to understand a reason why you think this is the case. "If deemed unacceptable, you are relegated to the outskirts and often denied access to say, credit." I'm sorry again, but this is also not only untrue…

Yes, you are not wrong that the Internet is a network of computers and that it is essentially impossible to “kick someone off” if they are technical enough.

That isn’t the point. The point is that free speech is both law and culture. Clinging to the notions of what is “legal free speech” is ignoring the cultural consequences of restricting it. Society is not a computer program that runs on laws.

When Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple all decide that you shall not be heard, you’re locked out from the 99.99% of the population that has zero understanding of how to access things via the URL bar. Remember that a huge portion of people just type in “Facebook” on Google and click the first link. Facebook itself is “the Internet” to billions of people. The percentage of people that are capable of setting up their own server and website is quite small.

Maybe this seems academic to Americans, but these same social media companies actively encouraged the uprisings in the Middle East a decade ago. Do you understand that if they had instead said, “Nah, we are banning this”, political opposition would have been essentially impossible, because the average person can use Facebook and Twitter but sure as hell isn't going to type in some obscure URL and organize a protest that way.

This is not about the letter of the law or how the internet works. It’s about democratizing technology so that the people have a fighting chance against those with power.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#107

Post by nlitened »

TameAntelope wrote: post #85
nlitened wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If I remember correctly, a lot of violence and multiple revolutions happened with the help of Twitter and YouTube all over the world. As long as violence is not in the US, it does not count, I suppose. That was probably what GP meant by say…

There is both good violence and bad violence. Blanket rules don't exist, despite our wish they did.

Bad violence is against me and people I like, good violence is against people who I don't like — am I right?

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#108

Post by antibuddy »

golondon wrote: post #101
antibuddy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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. The part with "in union" is not really explained by ML models. These de-platforming actions are done manually and apparently one-sided. Just for fun you can look up why Trump was banned on Twitter and see Khamenei's worst tweets from months prior, that were still up a week a…

Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.

That kicks you off platforms you barely use? It's manually done. Don't hide behind "the machine did it"; it doesn't make sense.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#109

Post by TameAntelope »

nlitened wrote: post #107
TameAntelope wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is both good violence and bad violence. Blanket rules don't exist, despite our wish they did.

Bad violence is against me and people I like, good violence is against people who I don't like — am I right?

The alternative, that all oppressed people just have to accept their oppression is even more intolerable, IMO.

Re: Turkey imposes advertising bans on Twitter, Periscope and Pinterest

#110

Post by TameAntelope »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #106
TameAntelope wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The issue is that an extremely small amount of American corporations are allowed to decide what is deemed acceptable to discuss online." This is simply not true. This is not what's happening, and again I am trying to understand a reason why you think this is the case. "If deemed unacceptable, you are relegated to the outskirts and often denied access to say, credit." I'm sorry again, but this is also not only untrue…

Yes, you are not wrong that the Internet is a network of computers and that it is essentially impossible to “kick someone off” if they are technical enough. That isn’t the point. The point is that free speech is both law and culture. Clinging to the notions of what is “legal free speech” is ignoring the cultural consequences of restricting it. Society is not a computer program that runs on laws. When Amazon, Facebook…

It is objectively false to say you are locked out of 99.9% of the population if Twitter, Amazon, and Google remove you from their platforms, and I think the fact that you believe such to be the case so unwaveringly means this conversation has come to an end.
Post reply on HN