Twitter locks account of India’s largest opposition party • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter locks account of India’s largest opposition party

#71

Post by sifar » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

colpabar wrote: post #65

So it seems that the dominant opinion in this thread is that twitter is a private company, and that they are allowed to operate as they see fit. They can ban whoever they want, as long as they say it violated their tos. But in [1], it says > Claiming that the tweet was in violation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the National Commission for Pr…

This needs to be seen in the larger context. The ruling party came to power by using social media (along with the MSM) much more effectively than the others.

I think they are a bit concerned with the way Trump was de-platformed by the US tech companies and want to make sure it doesn't happen to them - so want to "reign" them in. Hence the series of incidences with twitter (compliance issue, tagging fake information etc).

The above incident that happened is reprehensible. Also if prosecuted, the identity of one of the alleged culprit may not gel well with the ruling party's agenda.

I think the ruling party remembers history, a similar incident occurred in 2012 when the current opposition was in power[1], which led to a society wide backlash.

Now add to the fact that major states in India go to polls next year and national elections in 2024 and you get the motivations of everybody involved.

This is the broader context.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murde...

Re: Twitter locks account of India’s largest opposition party

#72

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

nsizx wrote: post #62

shadowgovt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. At which point, we'll be where we are right now but with several fewer communications services. People who want this content shared would still be able to host it on their own servers (and assume the liability if someone brings legal action), as they can do right now.

Only that they can't because isps will kick you out also. I want to make it illegal for isps to kick people out as well. :-)

Then your goal is at odds with removing section 230 protection. Section 230 protection is also what shields ISPs... If it were done away with, ISPs would be at risk of taking lawsuits for things done via their service and would flee the market. Cloudflare would drop the Daily Stormer faster in a world without 230.

Re: Twitter locks account of India’s largest opposition party

#73

Post by sifar » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #33

mikece wrote: post #2

How can Twitter seriously make the statement that they are not taking sides in a political issue by banning one party in a country? By any objective measure this is suppressing political speech and runs contrary to Twitter's stated goal of being on online Town Square, a place for discourse and the exchange of ideas. It would be one thing if an account was closed for obviously criminal reasons but I doubt that's the c…

Being apolitical doesn't mean "not touching politicians", it means "applying rules consistently regardless of politics and not designing rules for political gain". To not touch politicians would be to take the stand that some people are important politicians and some are not, that would be an inherently political distinction. Thus that route is not apolitical (short of just not moderating at all, that is possible but…

Both, the ruling party and twitter are locked in a pyrrhic struggle. One cannot let go of the market the other the platform.

Re: Twitter locks account of India’s largest opposition party

#74

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #58

wutbrodo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you say that. Senator Rand Paul was just suspended from YouTube for disputing the effectiveness of cloth masks: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/business/youtube-rand-pau...

Banning an individual for their actions is vastly differently than banning an entire party for the actions of one of its members.

Ah, I misread your comment. I also wasn't making any broader point, just thought it was amusing how closely very recent news matched your hypothetical.