81–90 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I trust my govt. way more than I will ever trust a Foreign entity. You trust a government that's trying to censor content they don't like over a company that doesn't want to censor it?
twitter is not censoring content?? hahaha what world are we living in?
"The IT rules, which became effective end-May, are aimed at regulating content on social media and making firms act more swiftly on legal requests to remove posts and sharing details on the originators of messages. They also require the appointment of certain new executives." The article makes this sound like a massive detriment to free speech. Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, g…
> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…
"The IT rules, which became effective end-May, are aimed at regulating content on social media and making firms act more swiftly on legal requests to remove posts and sharing details on the originators of messages. They also require the appointment of certain new executives." The article makes this sound like a massive detriment to free speech. Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, g…
> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I trust my govt. way more than I will ever trust a Foreign entity. You trust a government that's trying to censor content they don't like over a company that doesn't want to censor it?
If you take Huawei and TikTok, would you make the same argument? Why trust the govt just in select cases?
I don't like the government, but I hate monopoly of the twitter ever more than I hate the existing government or their opposition or any coalition of them. I hate any single entity owning this much power. So government bending them a little is a good thing at least right now.
I am somewhat confused how a middling social network of ~200M (generously) active users with a message limit of 280 chars has a lot of power? Celebrating government strong arming is an interesting take and only nice when its going your way. Always imagine whatever government excess you are ok with in this instance is now going against your position and see if you still like it.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions [of banning Trump], saying on Monday that lawmakers should set the rules governing free speech and not private technology companies. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...
Emmanuel Macron blasts social media platforms for banning Trump https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-twitter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…
I mean, I disagree with (some of) platforms' content removal, but I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If Twitter becomes a propaganda machine deleting any tweet it disagrees with, I think that's shitty and if I had an account I'd delete it to avoid participating, but I'm not sold on why the government should make that illegal . People and private organizations currently have the right to propagandize in…
Reach.
It is worth noting that the IT mister resigned[1] just a day back in a massive cabinet reshuffling (if you could call that). Twitter attracted the ruling government's wrath when it didn't censor/takedown Tweets supporting farmers' protests and those critical of government's handling of COVID's 2nd wave. [1] https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/breaking-ravi-shankar...
https://www.news18.com/news/india/remove-tweets-accounts-rel...
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/govt-defends-twitter-ban-sa...
The new regulations do seem to be a stretch. It's like using an artillery to destroy a skirmisher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…
It is bad when Twitter removes content. But I don't think that means it should necessarily be prohibited; compelled speech is also bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…
What about "news" channels that do the same? This has been going on with Fox and others for decades. They only propagandize the news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be specific. The Government requested the takedown of the hashtag, #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide This seems reasonable.
Is it? I don't know the particulars of India's constitution but suppressing speech like this is generally frowned upon by democracies.
Source: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-requests...