Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

Post by bosswipe » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

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…

Post by setr » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #89

foxnews35hgrtyu wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about "news" channels that do the same? This has been going on with Fox and others for decades. They only propagandize the news.

They are publishers. They exert full control over what goes on their air.

Post by TriNetra » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #9

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…

>They also require the appointment of certain new executives Ah so just like china? >Now a wide range of foreign companies in China, from the cosmetics giant L’Oréal to Walt Disney and Dow Chemicals, all have party committees and display the hammer and sickle on their premises. In 2017, Reuters published an article that quoted executives from one European company saying that party representatives had demanded to be b…

Post by suzumer » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

peytn wrote: post #114

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?

Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of association?

Post by jackson1442 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

setr wrote: post #113

jaywalk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are publishers. They exert full control over what goes on their air.

I think more importantly, they're responsible for anything they put on the air. Twitter claims a lack of responsibility, yet also wants to be the final arbiter.