Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#121

Post by selimthegrim » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

nsenifty wrote: post #40

rishav_sharan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense. Wasn't it partly due to the genocide misinformation? One protestor died in a tractor accident and Twitter did little to curb the misinformation that he was shot by police.

God help us if WhatsApp ever decides to curb BJP misinformation. Are the cops in UP going to make BJP WA group admins register like in Kashmir?

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#122

Post by devwastaken » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

philliphaydon wrote: post #61

OzyM wrote: post #2

"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.…

Government: can put you in jail, fine you, and enslave you.

Corporation: can ban you from their social media platform.

It's not equivalent.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#123

Post by jaywalk » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #94

jaywalk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't have to be a first-party statement to be considered "compelled speech". 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 car…

To me, there are two aspects of that ruling you cited which make it entirely different from social media:

1. "newspapers are economically finite enterprises" - There is a very real cost involved with printing newspapers, while the cost of hosting a social media post is so small it's not even worth mentioning.

2. "the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity" - Everything that goes into a newspaper has to pass editorial review, meaning the newspaper controls and is responsible for what is published. Social media does not have that.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#124

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:37 PM UTC

philliphaydon wrote: post #61

OzyM wrote: post #2

"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.…

It’s not possible to have online communities without moderation. Some people can be so toxic, or say toxic things, that the community is harmed.

I think just about anyone who ran a vBulletin forum back in the day understands this at an emotional level.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#125

Post by jaywalk » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

OzyM wrote: post #97

jaywalk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.

So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? 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…

> So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why?

That's not quite what I said, but yes, kind of. No phone company is allowed to moderate the speech that goes over their network, for example.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#126

Post by jaywalk » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

jackson1442 wrote: post #119

setr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think more importantly, they're responsible for anything they put on the air. Twitter claims a lack of responsibility, yet also wants to be the final arbiter.

Fox has also claimed a lack of responsibility, saying they are not a news outlet but are instead an entertainment provider. https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case...

You should read past the headline. The judge's ruling boiled down to the fact that Tucker Carlson Tonight is an opinion show, not a news show, and that any statements should be viewed through that lens.

Nobody, including Fox and Tucker Carlson himself, has claimed that Tucker Carlson Tonight is anything other than an opinion show. This is in contrast to CNN, where their opinion hosts actually do claim to be simply "reporting the news."

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#127

Post by mindslight » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

penultimatename wrote: post #96

jaywalk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.

Compelling counter argument. Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association change because a group is too large or loud in the public sphere?

The First Amendment explicitly differentiates on scale, as in "the people" versus "the government". When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#128

Post by justicezyx » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

OzyM wrote: post #2

"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…

This seems pretty much the same as Chinese law which requires publisher verify the sources. I dont know what exactly to make of it. But I think it probably makes sense from the government's perspective.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#129

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

peytn wrote: post #114

penultimatename wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compelling counter argument. Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association change because a group is too large or loud in the public sphere?

Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of association?

The fact that Freedom of Association is implicit in the First is not in question. All that's well litigated, and well understood.

Which is why one can have country clubs with, for example, racial exclusivity clauses. I'm not saying a like the idea of racial exclusivity policies. I'm only saying the First clearly grants private organizations a right to practice racial exclusivity.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#130

Post by Cederfjard » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

ikilledthecat wrote: post #70

OzyM wrote: post #2

"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…

As an Indian citizen I'd rather not have a shithead american executive lord over information flow in my country. I trust my govt. way more than I will ever trust a Foreign entity. Twitter should comply with Indian laws if it wants to operate here. It's as simple as that.

Doesn’t this just mean that you will have meddling from both the American executive and your government?

Also I don’t think anyone has advocated that Twitter should break the law. But surely it’s fair game to discuss whether it’s a good one.