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

Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#141

Post by pibaker »

traverseda wrote: post #30
KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both. Free speech does not cover scams and fraud, something that happens on their platform. Society doesn't take any action against them for publishing illegal content, scams, libel, fraud, because they aren't a newspaper. They're more like a newspaper printing house. In my opinion they should probably…

Most online platforms will become unusable if it becomes legally untenable for them to set their own rules about what is allowed and what is not.

Just take this website for example. If HN stops all forms of moderation, I bet you it will be flooded by wannabe startup entrepreneurs selling vibe coded SaaS overnight, right before every thread devolves into generic flame war about politics and whatnot.

And by the way, making platforms liable for scam and fraud that they do not intentionally allow turns every platform into the de facto arbitrator of what is scam and what is not, ironically giving them more power to control speech than they already do. Just look at how often DMCA takedowns are abused or how often the fraud detection on google etc misfires and censors legitimate websites to get a sneak peek of the future your good intentions pave the way to.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#142

Post by pibaker »

LPisGood wrote: post #89
TulliusCicero wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both. That's hilariously impractical. Just because you want to and can moderate some things doesn't mean you can guarantee rapid moderation of illegal stuff. When your platform is nominally open to everyone, and has millions of users, that just doesn't work out well.

“The business can’t survive if it has to play by the rules” is not a compelling reason to not make rules in my opinion.

What will happen in reality is the too big too fail platforms stay online by regulatory carve outs and smaller mom and pop forums shutdown, just like what is already happening now under other internet regulations.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#143

Post by iamnothere »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68
ptdcc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Free speech is fundamentally about the government restricting your speech, not private platforms. There is no constitutional right to post on Facebook. Amazing how certain people do their best to ignore this, every single time.

Freedom of speech also prevents the government using jawboning or implied threats to bully private companies into doing their will. Government doesn’t always need the cover of law to accomplish something.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#144

Post by za3faran »

spwa4 wrote: post #53
737min wrote: post #11

Context: the popular account is a promoter of Muslim Brotherhood, banned by US and many Mideast countries.

It goes quite a bit further: the Muslim Brotherhood are fascists (as in actual fascists) and (religous) racists, of the supremacist kind. They are in control of the most famous university in islamic countries: Al-Azhar. Long ago they were a supporter of Adolf Hitler, and today are known for being the parent organization of Hamas and they are supporting the genocide in Sudan (meaning they are sponsoring Arabs committi…

No, they do not control Al-Azhar.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#145

Post by giancarlostoro »

funimpoded wrote: post #129
giancarlostoro wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that the FBI using Twitter as a proxy to violate US citizens First Amendment right is not an issue? Because that's my entire point. There is absolutely no context that okays the FBI doing this, once you open pandoras box, you allow other administrations (including the current) to use the same "power" that they should have never had to begin with.

“Yo, this violates your rules” and then twitter sometimes going “yep, true, we’ll do something” and sometimes “nah” is pretty low on my list of concerns, yeah. Then again I also don’t think any company should have the reach any of the major media companies do these days. But antitrust and media-diversity regulations and laws have been out of fashion since the ‘70s.

Except Twitter staff debated if they actually broke any rules repeatedly, and later said, that, nope, no they did not. So you're not making any sense. Why read the raw source if you're not paying attention to their own words after the fact where the executives admit they goofed big time?

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#146

Post by TulliusCicero »

mystraline wrote: post #78
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is fundamentally about the government restricting your speech, not private platforms. There is no constitutional right to post on Facebook. Amazing how certain people do their best to ignore this, every single time.

> Free speech is fundamentally about the government restricting your speech, not private platforms. A corporate charter is granted at the BEHEST of the People and the Government. They are at best an artificial entity, and should be an extension of the laws binding government. Frankly, the current situation of "You can say whatever you want legally (well, not really), but your job will fire you for it and youll end up…

It's not specific to corporations, it's any sort of private group.

Free speech is the government not punishing you for saying something they don't like, not private actors forced to give you a soapbox.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#147

Post by TulliusCicero »

iamnothere wrote: post #143
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is fundamentally about the government restricting your speech, not private platforms. There is no constitutional right to post on Facebook. Amazing how certain people do their best to ignore this, every single time.

Freedom of speech also prevents the government using jawboning or implied threats to bully private companies into doing their will. Government doesn’t always need the cover of law to accomplish something.

True, if the government is leaning on private actors then that's also an issue of free speech, because it's still ultimately at the behest of the government.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#148

Post by TulliusCicero »

ipaddr wrote: post #77
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is fundamentally about the government restricting your speech, not private platforms. There is no constitutional right to post on Facebook. Amazing how certain people do their best to ignore this, every single time.

There are laws the restricting speech. There are laws for preventing people from platforms in some cases. Talk of what's in the constitution doesn't really matter. This person may seem not protected but a different government could go after meta for foreign influence. It's also a lesson not to trust companies who have a global presence because they are as good as who they do business with.

Nonsensical comment. It's barely even coherent.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#149

Post by [deleted] »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21
Tyrubias wrote: post #13

In a sane world, the US as a supposed bastion of free speech and personal liberties would enact legislation that requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts due to rules violations and offer everyone the chance to appeal. That would serve as a counterbalance to more authoritarian regimes insisting companies like Meta censor people, even if the US can’t guarantee it for people…

> requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

[deleted]

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#150

Post by spwa4 »

ipaddr wrote: post #83
spwa4 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's supposed to explain it? They knew about the holocaust and chose to support it. Was there a reason for that? Yes, of course. That's not the point. The point is they supported it, knowing full well what they were supporting.

That's a silly point of view when the truth about the holocaust came out after the war. Time traveling point of views are not allowed.

Okay, you're making me say it. The muslim brotherhood recruited Yugoslav muslims to form SS extermination squads to help with the holocaust. Oh and in case that's not convincing enough: there's transcripts of their discussions with the Nazi government where they openly discussed exactly what these armed units they were creating and putting under SS command were for. In detail.

Sadly, not a "silly point of view".

Post reply on HN