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

Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

pressprogress.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 282 posts

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#151

Post by eynsham »

ta8645 wrote: post #145
eynsham wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none of us have enough information to say for sure at this point Well, I agree; in these matters there is rarely definitive proof until the archives are opened. Given the implicit epistemic standards governing such assertions, I think this particular assertion is fine; there is a pretty good argument for it. Those standards vary by context, and sentences of the form 'intelligence agencies did blah' have relatively…

> I can equally make an argument that the relatively muted reaction of the Indophile UK government suggests that there is something to these reports: We can try to read the tea-leaves, but we don't know for sure. I'm not saying it's wrong, i'm saying people should stop being so emphatically absolute in their belief that they know the truth. It's a corrosive sickness that permeates much public discourse these days.

This just seems to be a misreading of varying implicit epistemic standards. When I'm in a logic seminar I'm obviously going to mean something different in using unqualified indicatives from when I'm in the pub. I don't thereby commit the sin of having unwarranted certainty when I'm in the pub.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#152

Post by ipaddr »

slashdev wrote: post #20
gustavus wrote: post #17

For those wondering this isn't because of their boneheaded law the official justification is > Your page has been unpublished,” reads a notice sent to BC Sikhs that was reviewed by PressProgress. “This is because BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations. I for one am so glad that we agreed it was a good idea for social media to censor dangerous people and opinions, espe…

> BC Sikhs goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations. This is hilarious to anyone who knows any Sikhs. They’re some of the most peace loving people on planet earth.

They are known for being fierce warriors. They carry a ceremonial daggers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_th...

Tibetan buddhist they are not

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#153

Post by eganist »

renewiltord wrote: post #113
gruez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act on Canadian soil, second only to 9/11 in deaths, walked free. >I can't comment on Canada's justice system broadly. But when it comes to holding terrorists accountable, Canada's track record is a joke. The wikipedia article says the Canadian government spent $130M prosecuting the accused, but was unable to secure a conviction. If these people can't be convicted,…

That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

> That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

Seems like that's exactly what rule of law should entail: laws so strictly enforced that people can't be prosecuted when the prosecution is botched because doing so would... violate the rule of law.

So if anything, this further reinforces the idea that Canada hews closely to its laws than not.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#154

Post by dirtyid »

pedrosorio wrote: post #135
dirtyid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western citizenship being inviolable golden passports for sheltering/weaponizing dissidents of foreign states is not going to be sustainable forever. The west providing sanctuary for enemies of other states is going to end when other states possess power/leverage to do something about it.

Replace Western with Russian and foreign with American and you have Snowden. The asymmetry you imply does not exist.

And Pompeo wanted to whack snowden. The asymmetry is west shelters much more foreign dissidents/criminals, and has more opportunities to weaponize them for foreign policy. Frequently it's deliberate, sometimes it's just happenstance of high immigration. But ultimately, west won't be able to stay clean of diasphora foreign policy drama, especially ones they actively cultivate or fail to suppress. Old legal excuse of, lol no we don't extradite to non-like minded countries, is going to lead to extra legal actions like this.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#155

Post by gruez »

motohagiography wrote: post #80
gruez wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the PM's governing party has been facilitating mass migration of Sikhs from India at a massive scale on every concievable visa exception Source?

Government workers, and seeing the line ups in towns around Ontario, and the "student" visa, among others. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-considering-fo... High effort comment tho.

So your evidence for that claim is random people's anecdotes about seeing too many Sikhs around?

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#156

Post by pclmulqdq »

blululu wrote: post #143
barkingcat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a ton of precedence of American companies applying American laws universally across the world (regardless of whether it's applicable by jurisdiction) in IP cases, in trade issues, etc. many times it's easiest to just have 1 set of rules across the planet, so companies end up with following the lowest common denominator of legal actions and policies. (even if these policies are illegal in other jurisdictions.…

There are two differences: First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. If companies do so it is a matter of convenience and not policy. While companies may petition the US government to apply pressure on allied countries to influence policy there is no presumption that American law will apply in a foreign country outside of what is circumscribed by treaties. Second there is the…

American law absolutely applies globally when it is applied to American citizens. People who don't realize this routinely end up in jail.

Stuff like the drinking age (a state law) doesn't apply, but federal laws do apply, which is why American citizens who go abroad to commit gang-related crimes (and more stupidly, break fishing and hunting restrictions) are still arrested when they return despite the fact that no aspect of the crime touched American soil.

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#158

Post by [deleted] »

mabbo wrote: post #48

To those saying "But Bill C-18" - it's not the Canadian government taking things down. It's the Indian government, taking down articles and posts that accuse them of assassinating a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil. C-18 is a problem. We need to deal with it. That's not relevant to the issue at hand. And to those saying "Well he was a terrorist..." we, in Canada, have something called the Rule of Law. You have to pr…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is blocking Canadians’ posts on the assassination of a BC Sikh leader

#160

Post by shkkmo »

blululu wrote: post #143
barkingcat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a ton of precedence of American companies applying American laws universally across the world (regardless of whether it's applicable by jurisdiction) in IP cases, in trade issues, etc. many times it's easiest to just have 1 set of rules across the planet, so companies end up with following the lowest common denominator of legal actions and policies. (even if these policies are illegal in other jurisdictions.…

There are two differences: First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally. If companies do so it is a matter of convenience and not policy. While companies may petition the US government to apply pressure on allied countries to influence policy there is no presumption that American law will apply in a foreign country outside of what is circumscribed by treaties. Second there is the…

> First, American law does not apply globally and makes no demands to apply globally.

This is completely false. There is no country that is more well versed on imposing their laws on other countries than the USA. This is done via sanctions, limiting access to the international US dollar based financial system, and by holding a dominant position in trade negotiations that often allows the USA to literally dictate the contents of foreign laws.

Post reply on HN