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

Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 221 posts

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

#131

Post by portpecos »

rishav_sharan wrote: post #26
xNeil wrote: post #18

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…

>I believe it came after the gov't put across barricades and barbed wires to caroll the protesters leading many to believe that the regime was planning a major crackdown.

Didn't the US also place barricades for Biden's inauguration?

I'm noticing a pattern here:

People, who deem it "good" that the US places barricades to corral protesters of the biden inauguration, are the same people inclined to deem it "bad" that India places barricades to corral protesters of the farm bills.

Similarly, people who deem it "good" that Twitter deplatforms #StopTheSteal are inclined to deem it "bad" that Twitter deplatforms #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide

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

#132

Post by OzyM »

jaywalk wrote: post #125
OzyM wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have an answer for my political-platform question? I feel like that'd help me understand where you're drawing the line here.

As far as phone companies, my current understanding is that in the U.S., the government is involved in building and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore it falls under the First Amendment.

If you run your own wires between a lot of houses to let people talk to each other, and then listen into every conversation and cut off ones you don't like, that doesn't seem illegal.

Things like Discord or Slack, for instance, should legally be able to moderate anything you send through them. Though it would be financial suicide to actually do so.

[Disclaimer here that I only have a vague understanding of telecommunications infrastructure]

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

#133

Post by wavefunction »

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.…

If the argument is that facebook is too big to be regulated by anyone, even facebook, then it's time to break it down into smaller and more manageable parts.

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

#134

Post by 1024core »

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…

Take a look at this, and tell me Twitter is not biased. The rules are to prevent such bullshit.

https://twitter.com/truth_recipe/status/1411234708814323712

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

#135

Post by db1234 »

Cederfjard wrote: post #130
ikilledthecat wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Between meddling from an American executive and Indian government, I would any day prefer Indian government. At least I have the power to vote out the government if I don't like its meddling.

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

#136

Post by portpecos »

penultimatename wrote: post #104
throwawaysea wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like when AOC asked Google and Apple to ban Parler and they complied?

I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decision to ban such a vibrant, positive application.

Ignoratio Elenchi: refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.

Your opponent was elaborating on the original claim that "If any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job", then "AOC should also lose her job when she requested removal of Parler"

Your counter argument, "I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decision to ban such a vibrant, positive application" is an unfair redirection of what your opponent was asserting.

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

#137

Post by 1024core »

rishav_sharan wrote: post #26
xNeil wrote: post #18

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…

> Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people.

An accusation for which he was acquitted by the Supreme Court of India.

And Modi's actions/inactions pale in comparison to those of the Congress Party, who actually committed genocide against the Sikhs in 1984, which resulted in up to 17,000 Sikhs getting murdered by Congress goons, for which noone has been held accountable.

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

#138

Post by wittycardio »

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.

What kind of Indian trusts their government lol

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

#139

Post by mahogany »

mindslight wrote: post #127
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?

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.

> 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.

How do you encode "large enough" in the law? And are you suggesting Twitter is wielding power equivalent to that of a government?

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

#140

Post by adventured »

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?

Yes, such a point exists. If you have a monopoly, for instance, then you should be subject to very different considerations. If you possess a monopoly on a discussion/communication platform so massive that it has become very important to societal communication and reach, then your ability to do what you want in terms of censoring content, should be curtailed in the favor of promoting free speech rather than the opposite. Meaning even if the monopolist wants to pursue their own political agenda and censor speech, they are barred from doing so. That is the price a corporation should pay for owning such an important platform, their responsibility should be greater, their freedom of action should be restricted more. You may be allowed to sell ads in that important quasi-public square, however you should not be allowed to restrict human rights in the square.

It is said, frequently and incorrectly, that only the government has the ability to censor. That's not correct. A monopoly, well positioned, can accomplish an identical outcome: it can restrict your voice in very comprehensive ways, including up to the point of literally denying you access to the Internet.

And a group of monopolies that conspire together in pursuit of a political agenda, well it's just that much worse.

Facebook (taking into account Facebook core + Instagram + WhatsApp) has a social media monopoly position, or something very close to it. They shouldn't get the same regulatory consideration as a modest sized political forum with 5,000 members.

YouTube has a monopoly in its consumer-upload streaming video segment. It's drastically larger than its comparable peers. Vimeo (who is #2 or #3 these days? I have no idea) should not get the same treatment as YouTube.

Google has a monopoly over search. It should not get the same treatment as DuckDuckGo.

Amazon (as with Walmart), should not get the same regulatory treatment as Joe's little corner grocer.

Twitter for its part, clearly doesn't have such a monopoly, even though it does have a massive, potent platform.

AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile shouldn't be allowed to block your access to a phone account/number, and shouldn't be allowed to censor your calls. For exactly the same reason Facebook shouldn't be allowed to deplatform you.

I think it's very clear we're going that direction, there is no scenario where the biggest platforms escape being regulated in terms of their ability to censor and deplatform. If it has to be done at the state level to start, it will be.

Post reply on HN