Live data from Hacker News

Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

sciencemag.org

151–160 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#151
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy isn't it? This community thinks Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors, ditto Twitter and Facebook. Microsoft isn't though. Not because they don't completely own the Desktop PC market just as they ever did, but because that market is less relevant than it used to be for web devs. I live in a strange time.

You live in a town with no fresh water, and the only drinks available are sold by the local store. This store does not sell bottled water, wine, orange juice, milk, or tea. The only drinks it sells are Coca-Cola and Pepsi. But if you don't like Coca-Cola, just buy Pepsi - how silly it would be to complain of monopoly when you still have a choice!

Who is Twitter in your analogy?

The store? Then your analogy is flawed because there are other big stores that sell basically the same stuff and even some small shops. Not a monopoly. If all of them choose not to sell that product that doesn't mean anything. They don't have any obligation to carry whatever you want.

Man, people are being absurd about this whole thing.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not a monopoly by any stretch. Regulating how sites handle speech just adds an additional hurdle for new, better platforms to enter. I should not have to have an expensive lawyer on retainer to read injunction requests just for running a This has already been tested in court in the Prager University vs Google, LLC [1] trial and was resolved very quickly. Freedom of speech does not mean another individual h…

> Twitter is not a monopoly by any stretch. Considering that Parler was curbstomped by Google/Apple/AWS last week, it's safe to say that Twitter doesn't operate in a naturally competitive market.

Parlor was incredibly lazy and opportunistic. The massive data leak and slamming by one of the most notorious sites on the internet, The Pirate Bay, suggests strongly that Parlor was not pursued in the most competent manor. [1] [2]

There are dozens of webhosts other than Google/Apple/AWS and plenty of ways to collocate directly. Even if you wanted to host something no provider could touch, you could publish a front

Picking some of the most recognizable and PR influenced companies in the world to host your publicly and deliberately controversial content is just plain stupid. They could have just seen how the pirate bay responded and copied them. Heck, since Parlor didn't host anything actually illegal, they could have potentially used the .swiss or .ch TLD since Switzerland has pretty strong anti-censorship laws.

[1] https://archive.vn/yrlwA [2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/14/pirate_bay_cofounder_...

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is not a monopoly by any stretch. Regulating how sites handle speech just adds an additional hurdle for new, better platforms to enter. I should not have to have an expensive lawyer on retainer to read injunction requests just for running a This has already been tested in court in the Prager University vs Google, LLC [1] trial and was resolved very quickly. Freedom of speech does not mean another individual h…

They're not a monopoly in the strictest sense, but they are extremely powerful. People go to Twitter to see what their representatives are saying. Journalists use it almost exclusively to discover what's relevant. Yes, they're a private company, but when a private company reaches a certain level of influence they become a government of sorts, just not one that owns a standing army. I think you underestimate the power…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repubs always hated public broadcasting, championing the free market to take care of journalism. Companies think Trump is toxic for their brand- surprised pikachu.

I'm not really championing public broadcasting here either. But in an internet-enabled world, in a country that values the right to free speech, there should be wholly unbiased platform that allows anyone to promote their speech to anyone else who wants to listen, as long as it is not speech that is already considered illegal (as decided by the courts, not unnamed corporate arbiters of truth). People keep making the…

It is still possible to register a domain name, run a web host, and present your speech to the unbiased, (nearly) global, public internet.

If you will indulge a bit of doomsaying, three recent trends should be more worrying to you:

- The current administration's actions against net neutrality

- ISP terms of use clauses against running any kind of server on "residential" connections

- "unlimited [insert streaming service] included!" data plans

Debate over where twitter should ban any users is wasteful bike-shedding in the conversation around modern communication.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world is Twitter a monopoly? Its market cap is $36B. That's 2X less than Snap and 20X less than Facebook.

It is a communication monopoly.

It's a monopoly on social graphs. I don't want to rediscover and invite my friends everytime I start a new account on another service.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think there may be some conflating of "very powerful" (?) with monopoly here. it does not take much effort to realize that twitter is not a monopoly in the space of speech platforms. it's not clear to me that twitter is particularly unique as a speech platform: blogs minimally could serve this role, as could mastodon. more controversially perhaps: facebook/instagram. contrast that with a situation where you literal…

This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. Twitter is one of a small handful of platforms where an individual can share an idea and have that idea spread - as long as the owners of Twitter don't disagree with that idea. It's not because twitter is special, it's because it was one of the first to achieve a sufficiently large userba…

> This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'.

No, it's saying you're welcome to practice free speech, you just can't borrow my megaphone to do it.

How hard is this to understand? You are not entitled to use other people's property without their consent.

If twitter was actually the only way to communicate with people on the internet you might have a case, but that is completely, ridiculously, absurdly not true.

Post reply on HN