91–100 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be specific. The Government requested the takedown of the hashtag, #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide This seems reasonable.
Reasonable in fascist Germany sure, on a democratic platform? Not so much. US companies need start saying "screw you" to more countries (the US included) when asked to violate their values. We need to be telling China to pound sand every day in every way we can.
When I worked at Twitter in 2013 Jack and Dick were always bringing in very very young boys and I felt extremely uncomfortable with it which is why I left.
The entire company and diaspora is a cesspool.
"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.
It is bad when Twitter removes content. But I don't think that means it should necessarily be prohibited; compelled speech is also bad.
If you are a true platform, which the social media giants insist that they are, then it's tough to call it "compelled speech" when it was posted by someone who is not representing the company. The company is not the one saying it, despite it being hosted by them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v....
It is pretty reasonable for conversations to have moderation, just as private groups can do in person, and as publications have editors.
It is not yet clear how social media fits into the platform/publisher/utility/whatever debate, but I'm just saying that we should be careful. Whatever we decide applies to Facebook/Twitter now will apply to some other company you or I create in the next decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
twitter is not censoring content?? hahaha what world are we living in?
Twitter wasn't censoring the content the Indian government has introduced new laws to compel them to censor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.
Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association change because a group is too large or loud in the public sphere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.
If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now legally compelled to host the other political party's opinions?
(To be clear: I'm not saying that example is exactly analogous to Twitter, but I don't understand why one would be legally different)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasonable in fascist Germany sure, on a democratic platform? Not so much. US companies need start saying "screw you" to more countries (the US included) when asked to violate their values. We need to be telling China to pound sand every day in every way we can.
Democratic platform? Do I get to vote on Twitter's content rules?
Twitter is in an incredibly convoluted ideological war with the Indian Govt. Monetarily and by pure numbers, the Indian right wing benefited from a new megaphone in twitter in 2014. Twitter only took notice of this after what they saw as the victory of a 'fascist' govt. (This is before twitter erupted into complete ideological polarization in 2016) Looking at the readiness of getting blue check marks and twitter's ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hashtags insinuated the government was planning a farmer genocide. Source: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/govt-se...
How is that a threat to India's sovereignty or security? Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people. Hell, he was even banned from entering the US, till he became the Indian PM. There is blood on his hands and lots of it. And to give some context on this hash tag, I believe it came after the gov't put across barricades and barbed wires to caroll the pro…