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

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

#151

Post by meepmorp » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

xNeil wrote: post #69

portpecos wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide and #StopTheSteal from a free speech perspective?

My question exactly - I'd love to hear someone's take on this. Both are misinformation campaigns, and both result in violence. I don't see why Trump should be banned but accounts tweeting that the government is planning a genocide should not (be banned). I'd say both bans were fair.

I think people are wary about a government making an official demand that content be removed. Trump's ban was entirely Twitter's own decision; by contrast, the Indian government seeks to compel removal of material.

I don't have a problem, per se, with governments having the ability to remove content from public platforms on public safety or security grounds. But the Modi government has also sought to remove content that's much less plausibly likely to inflame public violence, in particular related to its handling of COVID.

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

#152

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:24 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.…

>> 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. That allows these platforms to promote a politician that maybe trying to reduce corporate tax, and suppress one who is trying to raise it. It’s bad enough these platforms are dictating what’s a conspiracy theory or who we should listen to about Covid.

Kinda sorta. There are actually two separate but related problems. It makes sense for private parties to be able to remove content on their own platforms, BUT that also becomes an issue if those platforms are able become as dominant "one stop shops" like Facebook or Google. So the real problem is figuring out how to break up the over-dominant platforms.

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

#153

Post by 1024core » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #34

mullen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FWIW, the American government also requests removals from social media sites. No, they don't. Any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job. That's saying a lot because American Government officials rarely ever lose their jobs.

> Any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job You missed FOSTA/SESTA then? That forced the removal of anything that even looks vaguely like sex work from social media.

Crickets... no answer.

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

#154

Post by barbazoo » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

pcmoney wrote: post #98

8note wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic platform? Do I get to vote on Twitter's content rules?

Democratic as in protected by free speech laws as it is incorporated in a democracy. Not socialist as in no you don't get a say on how a private company operates as it also gets the right to freedom of speech and association.

It seems that you are not quite clear about the meaning of those terms.

> Socialism and democracy cannot be compared because it would just be like comparing apples to oranges since socialism is an economic system while democracy is a political ideology. An economic system defines the manner of producing and distributing the goods and services of society while a political system refers to the institutions that will comprise a government and how the system will work.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/diff...

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

#155

Post by cyanydeez » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:47 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…

less free range propaganda.

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

#156

Post by jimsimmons » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

screye wrote: post #50

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…

Perhaps you should think of your tilt when you see ideology in fact checkers

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

#157

Post by fukd » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

As a saying goes here tongue has no bones which means people can and will lie eaily.

That being said as son of a farmer i will support the government actions. period.

A company's solo responsibity is making money for its shareholders so no thanks corporations, please take your business elsewhere if you dont like our laws.

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

#158

Post by fukd » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

Funnily farmers are not on twitter (my father doesnt even know what its) but some elitists are deciding whats good for us farmers on twitter.

Do you guys even when the reforms happend last time? nor the main setfacks that we face?

These are the same people who go on tv shows and make a scene until govt bans export of produce whenever tomatos/onions hit even 50rs.

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

#159

Post by mindslight » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

mahogany wrote: post #139

mindslight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down and fraught with arguments.

I am pointing out that if we view freedom of speech/association as a natural/human right, it is possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide "government" to be oppressing that right.

This is trivially demonstrable by interpreting any existing society as an anarcho-capitalist paradise where there is no government, just one large company you're forced to contract with to obtain vital necessities.

For a real world example within our society, take a look at the list of songs censored by Clear Channel in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was no bona fide government edict declaring this, just opaque corporate power ultimately wielded by the same people marching us to war in most other forums.

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

#160

Post by mindslight » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

penultimatename wrote: post #147

mindslight wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never heard of a court ruling that construed "the government" in the Constitution, an amendment, or a law as synonymous with a private company based on size or power. That's a massive leap that isn't codified in law and the consequences of intermingling the two concepts has massive implications.

I never said it was declared in law, nor currently interpreted by the courts as such. I was talking about what ought to be, because legally analyzing "what is" is trivial.

I don't think Twitter is to the size where it constitutes de facto government power (although Faceboot seems much closer). I'm just saying that asserting that anything that isn't the bona fide government cannot effectively oppress natural/human rights is a poor idea.