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

Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

restofworld.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 208 posts

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#121

Post by john_max_1 »

motohagiography wrote: post #93

The reaction of Koo may be more accurately described as being to globalization and the cultural homogenization it entails than against the largely western right/left divide. The diversity of opinions on mainstream platforms is starting to resemble being in an airport where you have the choice of mcdonald's, wendy's, burger king, or taco bell if you are looking for something exotic. Sure, it appeals to everyone, excep…

It is actually worse that you said. It is like the US wants to have only mcdonald's, wendy's, burger king, or taco bell at the Indian airports.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#122

Post by foolinaround »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #108
foolinaround wrote: post #102

While the Koo founder sounds idealistic in his interview, it is clear that he is willing to be bound by Indian laws - which a large segment of the country feels that it is being applied selectively. so, Koo will be patronized orimarily by the followers of the ruling party, and will be seen as such, even if it was not his intent.

Worth noting: Under Indian law, truth is not necessarily a defense to defamation. But perhaps having being black-and-white democratically enacted rules (such as they are) is better than having opaque rules set by unelected San Francisco employees.

i have to agree here that theoretically yes, laws enacted by a democracy are better than those by an oligarchy

as long as this is not the only app one can use in India, etc, this is fine.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#124

Post by naruvimama »

sgpl wrote: post #39
99_00 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does 'nationalism' concern you. Is 'nationalism' always or almost always negative?

In this instance it concerns me because this form of 'nationalism' is a net negative for India and its future generations. It's masquerading as national pride but it's an attack on the secularity of the country, an attack on minorities (religious, lgbtq+ folks, etc), an attack on free speech and an attack on political freedom/opposition. India is not a monolith but a diverse country with a rich history and trying to…

India's diversity is guaranteed only because of Hindus.

Communists, Christians & Islam has cultural cleansing as their core instrument. As simple scan of the world will let you clearly classify nations as catholic, protestant, sunni or shia.

Projecting problems of western ideologies into false equivalences in Eastern thought does no one any good.

Laws against LGBTQ was imposed by the British and it was removed by the current BJP government after 70 years of independence because the BJP does not give in to fundamentalist Christian/Islamic voices.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#125

Post by mc32 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #118
mc32 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech should be defined by laws rather than ToSes. With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking against having pets could be hate speech against pet owners. I mean it could mean whatever the mods want it to mean. You can circumscribe it to only affect people you want affected for whatever reason.

> With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking against having pets could be hate speech against pet owners. I mean it could mean whatever the mods want it to mean. You can circumscribe it to only affect people you want affected for whatever reason. To be fair, Congress could, on a whim, change the definitions of hate speech whenever they felt like it. If you're arguing about selective enforcement with TOS, the…

Yes agreed. There is no good solution. True hate speech is one of the reasons we can’t have good things. But “hate speech” is a cudgel used to control people and get them used to being controlled.

That said, things like speed limits for example. We all on principle agree to this type of enforcement. One via the licensing and second via legislation. We could make changes if we thought it important enough.

Look at prop 47. People erroneously thought we were prosecuting too many minor thefts. So the law was changed. Now many people are looking to reverse it given the unintended consequences. Point is, at least we can affect legislation directly. Not so with ToSes unless Congress takes up the issue -which so far they are loath to do.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#126

Post by cobraetor »

foolinaround wrote: post #97
mrzimmerman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Republican party decided that because Trump was no longer president at the time of his 2nd impeachment trial he couldn't TECHNICALLY be convicted: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-mccon... Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress seriously believed he wasn't…

you have to check either your biases or where you get your stories from. If the impeachment managers did this stuff (fake the evidence such as videos, tweets, etc) in a real court, they would face serious consequences. The Chief Justice recognized it as a sham and did not participate, and one does not need to like Trump to know what this second round was. The first one was atleast done by the book...

Not really disagreeing with you, but Hacker News guidelines prohibits making negative comments about a person.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Everyone is biased, so it would be far more productive to just refute the central point, which in the case of mrzimmerman's comments on this thread (as you may realize) is rather straightforward[1] to do.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

[1] For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198380

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#127

Post by nonamechicken »

markdown wrote: post #81
nonamechicken wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I just copy pasted from another post of mine where we were talking about MSP. MSP means minimum support price. Its a guarantee from the government to the farmers that the government will buy the crop at a certain minimum price no matter the market situation is. For example, MSP for 1 kg rice may be rupees 20. If the farmers can get a higher price in the market, they can sell it at that price. But if the market…

Thank you. Great explanation. > why can't farmers dictate the price if they have this much bargaining power. They have political bargaining power, but don't have much bargaining power in the market. This is because most crops are perishable goods. Even with crops like rice (which can be stored by the farmers for an extended period), farmers can't afford to hold on to the goods for long... they need cash to survive.

That's a very good point. Thank you.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#128

Post by BannedQuick »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #19
ceilingcorner wrote: post #11

The actions of Twitter regarding the last election have almost certainly guaranteed the rise of foreign social media sites. If they have no qualms restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments. American social media sites really have no one to blame but themselves. I say this from a realpolitik perspective. This was clearly the obvious outcome.

Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any speech.

The definition of hate speech is not universal. It is purely subjective based on whoever controls the Wikipedia-to-journalist-circular-citation pipeline.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#129

Post by naruvimama »

rdedev wrote: post #80
throwawaysea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what is actually happening, and is a very common incorrect characterization by progressive/Western groups/others. India's Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) grants refugee status and paths to citizenship for refugees from some of the surrounding countries, but only if they belong to certain persecuted groups. If you're a Muslim from a Muslim-majority country, then almost always you are not a refugee escaping…

If you are an LGBTQ muslim in one of those muslim majority countries you listed above then you will certainly be persecuted. A single factor should not be used to determine the refugee status of a person

Ok, is it possible to be an LGBTQ muslim?

Meaning you believe gay people need to be stoned to death and still be gay? Or is it the other way round.

Even in this case the comparison is unfair considering that Hindu children can be killed or kidnapped and married to an old muslim man just because they are non-muslim.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#130

Post by throwawaysea »

mrzimmerman wrote: post #91
throwawaysea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove incitement? Because Twitter certainly did not list out any convincing evidence in their blog post about the ban ( https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... ), instead sheepishly offering up Trump's absence at the inauguration as evidence. It's hard to blame Trump for the Jan 6th riots when 10000 people showed up at his rally that day and only a couple hundred at most went past the…

He also explicitly told everyone to "fight like hell". I mean, if he's using double speak I can't help that but one part of what he said triggered a percentage of the people to try to find and kill US Congress people, steal computer equipment and other office supplies, and kill police officers. You're asking everyone who watched the capitol riots to ignore what they saw with their own eyes.

I don't think what he said triggered anyone to find and kill US Congress people. You're making that claim and connection, but there is no evidence to prove that causality and I am simply not convinced. If someone takes his rhetoric (which I find disagreeable) and thinks it means they should go commit such an act, I feel like almost the entirety of the responsibility is on them as individuals.

Also, consider that Democrats frequently use the same rhetoric when they are talking to their own audiences as well. The Trump defense team showed a 9 minute clip of Democrats using the word "fight" in the recent impeachment proceedings (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeachment-defense-team-sh...).

Post reply on HN