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

Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 335 posts

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#171

Post by Robotbeat »

dickbar wrote: post #22

This move is bold and refreshing. I think Facebook and Amazon should also be taking action (assuming sci hub is using AWS and people are posting links to it on FB and organizing groups). It’s only fair that, in case of breach of any law, regardless of where it comes from, that same measures be applied in each and every case. I’m sure HN would agree given what has transpired over the last week. Edit: I missed to inclu…

Copyright infringement (especially when arguably in the public interest, even if illegal) and inciting violence are not even close to comparable. Different moral universe. Different legal ramifications as well.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#172

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

koolk3ychain wrote: post #124

I hate that I have to preface this, but I'm a democrat who voted for Biden and doesn't question the outcome of the election. That said, our society does not need this kind of gerrymandering in our online discourse. People need to forget politics for a second and realize the true harm companies like this are inflicting by effectively playing god.

I think the message of holding social media accountable for the harm it causes everybody is being drowned out by the hyperbolic statements like "effectively playing god".

They are not playing god. They own a platform, they are determining who can and cannot speak on that platform. That's the same thing every news paper, internet forum, email server, BBS, public bulletin board, or really any publishing of any kind has done since the invention of publishing.

Twitter is not part of the government, and it does not have a monopoly on internet communication. Hell, it doesn't even charge for its services. You are not entitled to use their platform.

If you are disgusted and disappointed in social media for their behavior, that's perfectly reasonable! There are things you can do about it! you can refuse to use their service, refuse to recommend it to friends, promote competitors, etc.

What you cannot do is pretend that just because they are a large wealthy organization you have some kind of right to use their platform to say whatever you want.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#173

Post by roenxi »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #168
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

It all boils down to this: a) Should twitter be allowed to cancel accounts who harm twitter? If yes: b) Who decides which accounts harm twitter? If the answer is "twitter", then they have effectively the right to terminate any account at their will. I don't know what other answer is possible for b) except maybe "the courts", and I'm not sure I like that one. If the answer to a) is no, for which companies does this ap…

> a) Should twitter be allowed to cancel accounts who harm twitter?

Although some people agree that is the question, it is not the fundamental one here. Most of the respectable arguments are that Twitter's bans are senselessly harming Twitter. They're building a gaping hole in their offering that a competitor can cover.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#174

Post by skissane »

kristofferR wrote: post #170
ardy42 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For that matter, should convicted murderers get their accounts suspended? I think not solely on the grounds that they’ve committed murder - but maybe if they are using their platform to cause further harm. On a related note, Facebook policy bans sex offenders from having accounts at all, regardless of what they do with them: https://www.facebook.com/help/210081519032737 : > Convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to…

That's pretty messed up. You as a 14 year old send a nude picture to your 15 year old boyfriend and suddenly you're banned from Facebook from life? Frankly the whole situation in the US is messed up, punishment should be limited to whatever the court decides.

Even more messed up is the fact that some jurisdictions will criminally prosecute 14 year olds for sending nude pictures of themselves.

(I do think 14 year olds should be discouraged from taking and sending nude pictures of themselves – it is the sort of thing they could easily come to regret in a few more years – but I don't think criminal prosecution is an ethical way of providing that discouragement.)

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#175

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

MikeUt wrote: post #166
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed. If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be? Should we be conc…

> The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed.

There are significantly more than two companies that allow mass communication over the internet. In fact, there are a significant number of perfectly free and open ways to communicate over the internet.

Why is Twitter special?

> If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be?

Sorta my point, because that happens all the time. No one goes around saying theater chains are monopolies and need to show every movie anyone deigns to have projected on a screen.

> Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?

Maybe, but that isn't legal standing for doing anything. If you don't like it, boycott theaters, tell your friends not to go to them, promote alternatives that deliver what you want.

Oh, but then the market might disagree with you and keep going to the theaters anyway. Well tough. You're not entitled to force people to care.

Alternatively, push for legislation around online communication platforms and how they are allowed to determine who can and cannot speak on them. But then don't be surprised when those rules apply to your mailing list too.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#176

Post by mrguyorama »

rcoveson wrote: post #59
dankboys wrote: post #16

They’re a private company, Sci-Hub has to make their own social media service

Can't host it with Google or Amazon, though, as those companies are also willing to take you down before any injunction. DNS providers will also take you out if there's social pressure to do so; see the recent GoDaddy action against AR15.com. Not sure how you work around that. As for Internet connection, there was another recent action by an ISP which blocked access to Twitter. So you're not necessarily safe with you…

>It's kind of like living in a small town 150 years ago. The "people" of the town are the few giant service providers in the country. It doesn't really matter what the law says, if the town consensus is that you are not welcome, then they can make it very hard or impossible to live there.

And yet an entire town ostracizing someone for a non-protected attribute is actually protected speech and behavior under the first amendment. If you can't participate in polite society, there's very few things the government actually guarantees you.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#177

Post by dylan604 »

bioinformatics wrote: post #67
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

You missed the worldwide vote for the company that should hold the only truths in all matters? Twitter won. Google second and FB third.

* Some or all of the content shared in this message is disputed and might be misleading

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#178

Post by jjk166 »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #168
HarryHirsch wrote: post #11

Twitter has no business inserting itself into a dispute between Elbakyan and Elsevier et al. Few people would have issues if Twitter shut down the Sci-Hub account after they received a valid court order, but a private monopolist cannot be trusted to be the arbiter of what is permitted speech.

It all boils down to this: a) Should twitter be allowed to cancel accounts who harm twitter? If yes: b) Who decides which accounts harm twitter? If the answer is "twitter", then they have effectively the right to terminate any account at their will. I don't know what other answer is possible for b) except maybe "the courts", and I'm not sure I like that one. If the answer to a) is no, for which companies does this ap…

Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you should do it or that you should be immune to criticism for doing it.

For example, in an at-will employment state, an employer can legally fire you for looking at them funny. No one would argue that an employer shouldn't have the right to terminate an employee if they were bad for the company, nor would anyone object to the employer being able to determine what is good or bad for the company. Nevertheless, such an act is a dick move and the employer should be heavily criticized for doing it.

Re: Twitter shuts down account of Sci-Hub

#180

Post by jjk166 »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #123
mc32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. They’re not violating copyright via Twitter. They should have a voice via Twitter, no matter the accusation. Do accused murderers [as opposed to convicted] get their Twitter suspended? This is ridiculous.

at the end of the day twitter has the right to close whatever account they so choose

They also have the legal right to modify everyone's tweets to be quotes from mein kampf. That they have the right to do something doesn't mean they should do it nor that they should be immune to criticism for doing it.
Post reply on HN