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

Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

netblocks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 600 posts

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#451

Post by flyinglizard »

golergka wrote: post #39
mrtksn wrote: post #20

Erdogan's first speech was almost 2 days after the earthquake and he said "We are monitoring who said what on the social media and tried to provoke the people. Today it's not the day to go after those but we take notes and when the day comes, we will go after them". Just look at his face when delivering this speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doy38aKbMw4 It's like from V for Vendetta. The lighting choice is very…

This is one of many, many reasons why western countries and social media companies should not normalise censorship re-branded like "fighting disinformation".

However disinformation may very well lead to totalitarian regimes, propped on distorted reality and fake news. A democracy must be able to defend itself.

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#452

Post by quanticle »

beefield wrote: post #446
quanticle wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who visits both HN and 4Chan, I like having the choice. I definitely don't want the government deciding that 4Chan is illegal and wiping it off the 'Net because it contains disinformation. When you ask, "How should governments fight disinformation," what you're really asking is, "How can governments deny their citizens the right to choose what information they read, watch or listen to." When it's phrased l…

No, it is the other way round. If there are no places where companies and/or governments censor/limit free speech/fight misinformation, every place turns into 4chan and you lose your ability to choose. I'm happy there are places where speech is not restricted. And I'm even more happy that there are places where speech is restricted. Do you think HN should stop moderating discussion?

Do you believe every online forum accessible to Americans should have as strict, or stricter moderation than HN, because it's been demanded by a subset of voters?

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#453

Post by mjburgess »

LarryMullins wrote: post #388
mjburgess wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is speech; there is no sale.

If there is to be no sale, then is it really advertising at all? If I "advertise" that I own a thing with no intention of selling that thing, then laws about honest advertisement don't apply to me. My car (not for sale) has a nuclear reactor and can travel through time.

yes

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#454

Post by bastardoperator »

sorethescore wrote: post #445
golergka wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of many, many reasons why western countries and social media companies should not normalise censorship re-branded like "fighting disinformation".

Nonsense, if you tolerate disinformation you get more disinformation. Countries that fail to address it will fall and the world will be worse off because of it. The right to free speech does not include the right to a free platform or free promotion.

Agreed, disinformation is dangerous and it should be treated as such. Just because you say/write it doesn't mean I'm required to host it. Freedom to promote stupidity does not outweigh my right to unplug my microphone.

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#455

Post by golemiprague »

macintux wrote: post #235
tradertef wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Turk, I do not trust people who are using Turkiye in English. That is virtue signaling which is saying they are populist, nationalist etc. etc. I also find the change idiotic at the least though I understand why they did it.

When working with people of different nationalities and ethnicities I emphasize trying to pronounce their names correctly. Why is this different?

[dead]

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#456

Post by LarryMullins »

mjburgess wrote: post #453
LarryMullins wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is to be no sale, then is it really advertising at all? If I "advertise" that I own a thing with no intention of selling that thing, then laws about honest advertisement don't apply to me. My car (not for sale) has a nuclear reactor and can travel through time.

yes

No, not in a sense that triggers truth in advertising laws.

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#457

Post by dzhiurgis »

tradertef wrote: post #191
blagie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic: Do most people there prefer "Türkiye" or "Turkey?"

As a Turk, I do not trust people who are using Turkiye in English. That is virtue signaling which is saying they are populist, nationalist etc. etc. I also find the change idiotic at the least though I understand why they did it.

Aotearoa New Zealand will be same

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#458

Post by radres »

As a Turkish person, seeing people tweet under rubbles, hardly breathing but found some space to tweet their full address, THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. And THIS IS MURDER.

There are still people who are alive under rubbles with still some charge left on their phone. Twitter proved to be one of the most effective ways to communicate how severe their situation was.

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#459

Post by tremon »

LarryMullins wrote: post #456
mjburgess wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes

No, not in a sense that triggers truth in advertising laws.

If you advertise a product without intent to sell, you're also breaking truth in advertising laws: you're selling vaporware.

Re: Twitter restricted in Turkey in aftermath of earthquake

#460

Post by skeaker »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #376
alphanullmeric wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, your comparison is just not equivalent. A sale is a transfer of property. We enforce the implicit contract that goes along with that. The buyer will pay, the seller will deliver, the product is accurate, etc. This discussion is about speech, for which no such contract exists. If you disagree, then you should have no problem arresting people for showing off a 3 watt bulb they claim to be 5 watts.

Holy false equivalent, Batman! The poster's point was pretty simple: there is some speech which doesn't deserve to be fully protected to the highest possible level. Untrue commercial speech like false advertising is pretty much in that category. This is why we allow attorneys-general to bring cases against false advertisers, for example. Usually the remedy is monetary damages, but injunctive relief is also available.…

Isn't the crime of false advertising in the failure to deliver what was claimed, and not the claim itself? You can very well falsely advertise your product however you like provided you don't actually sell it to anyone, because once you deliver them a product that isn't what you claimed, that's when the actual crime occurs.
Post reply on HN