Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#171

Post by wizardofmysore » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

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…

One thing I can think of is revenge porn, child porn or any videos of sexual nature published without the consent of the participants. This has detrimental social impact. Courts should be able to make companies remove such content.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#172

Post by billh » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

rammer wrote: post #170

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…

Are there any benefits to this regulation I'm overlooking? > Yep lots, A democratically elected government of a state is at least answerable to its constituents who can boot them out if the government doesn't do the right thing. These monopolistic social 'platforms' are not answerable to anyone but the whims of their management and advertisers. They purposely allow lies and misinformation to propogate as it boosts en…

> A democratically elected government of a state is at least answerable to its constituents who can boot them out if the government doesn't do the right thing.

How can constituents come to any informed opinion if a government appointed executive is summarily striking any public discussion on controversial topics? Seems completely antithetical to any semblance of a functional democracy.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#173

Post by mahogany » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #159

mahogany wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When companies get large enough to wield power as de facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they too respect our natural rights. How do you encode "large enough" in the law? And are you suggesting Twitter is wielding power equivalent to that of a government?

I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down and fraught with arguments. I am pointing out that if we view freedom of speech/association as a natural/human right, it is possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide "government" to be oppressing that right. This is trivially demonstrable by interpreting any existing society as an anarcho-capitalist…

I think most people view freedom of speech as a right in a broad sense, particularly with respect to the government, but are also okay with a violation of it in certain contexts, like in a private domain. It seems to me that a bar owner kicking out a loud or inflammatory patron is an example of "oppressing that right", but most people understand this and have no problem with it because the alternative -- a world where the bar owner is forced to let the patron say anything they want on the bar owner's property -- is worse.

There's a significant difference between private enterprise and government. For example, no matter how much a business doesn't like you, they can't jail you based on their own set of rules (laws).

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#174

Post by lugged » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 3:13 AM UTC

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…

> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense.

Please name one time censorship has had good outcomes that did not also lead to more censorship?

Because this time clearly doesn't count.

Legality, like all things to do with morality, is irrelevant. Legality is downstream from cultures, not morality.

E: The mere fact people are downvoting an anti censorship viewpoint is disturbing to me. Y'all are worse than Nazis and you don't even realize it.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#175

Post by lugged » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

OzyM wrote: post #97

jaywalk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the major difference between Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments? Reach.

So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why? If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now legally compelled to host the other political party's opinions? (To be clear: I'm not saying that example is exactly analogous to Twitter, but I don…

> So there's some popularity point where after people use a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why?

Yes, see monopoly.

Why? See tragedy of the commons.

> If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now legally compelled to host the other political party's opinions?

The point in which you become monopolies that actively collude with other monopolies to shut down alternative platforms enabling discourse you disagree with politically is probably a good bar.

Then again, I think all censorship is immoral so basically there is no bar in my view on the matter.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#176

Post by Talanes » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 3:37 AM UTC

portpecos wrote: post #136

penultimatename wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decision to ban such a vibrant, positive application.

Ignoratio Elenchi: refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted. Your opponent was elaborating on the original claim that "If any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job", then "AOC should also lose her job when she requested removal of Parler" Your counter argument, "I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decisi…

AOC doesn't have a job to be fired from, she has a position that she was elected to.

And a public plea for a company to take a certain course of action is different than a direct request. The latter carries much more "or else" subtext. An upset Congressperson doesn't carry the same potential for immediate disaster as having the DOJ on your back.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#177

Post by mindslight » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

mahogany wrote: post #173

mindslight wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down and fraught with arguments. I am pointing out that if we view freedom of speech/association as a natural/human right, it is possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide "government" to be oppressing that right. This is trivially demonstrable by interpreting any existing society as an anarcho-capitalist…

I think most people view freedom of speech as a right in a broad sense, particularly with respect to the government, but are also okay with a violation of it in certain contexts, like in a private domain. It seems to me that a bar owner kicking out a loud or inflammatory patron is an example of "oppressing that right", but most people understand this and have no problem with it because the alternative -- a world wher…

I don't disagree with your first paragraph, because of the assumption that there are other bars to go to.

If there are not other bars to go to, and if instead of bars we're talking about vital services such as food, housing, or communication that have been monopolized or oligopolized, then that assumption no longer holds.

I don't think Twitter itself is anywhere near that type of critical. But in general it's ignorant to write off "private enterprise" as if it something that is entirely distinct from "government". And this goes doubly in the US where "private enterprise" ends up shaping much of society.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#178

Post by pcmoney » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 3:58 AM UTC

barbazoo wrote: post #154

pcmoney wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic as in protected by free speech laws as it is incorporated in a democracy. Not socialist as in no you don't get a say on how a private company operates as it also gets the right to freedom of speech and association.

It seems that you are not quite clear about the meaning of those terms. > Socialism and democracy cannot be compared because it would just be like comparing apples to oranges since socialism is an economic system while democracy is a political ideology. An economic system defines the manner of producing and distributing the goods and services of society while a political system refers to the institutions that will co…

Ok this is tedious, socialized typically implies a higher level of government involvement (benefits, regulation, subsidies etc.) and often nationalization (like that socialist mexican oil platform that just lit the gulf on fire) than say a more free market economy democracy. Yes, technically you can have a socialist democracy. (Depending on how you stretch the word “democracy” you could have a democratic anything) However, in socialist democracies it is rare for companies to enjoy similar protections from government interference as the individuals do (and often the individuals are interfered with more as well). So a democratic company is a company in a nation whose democratic politics result in protections of the companies as well as the people. All political systems are fundamentally economic systems, lets not be naive.

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#179

Post by jimsimmons » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

screye wrote: post #162

jimsimmons wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should think of your tilt when you see ideology in fact checkers

I'll apologize in advance my response maybe a bit snarky. Your comment does not read like it comes from a place of good faith, so I find it hard to reciprocate. > Perhaps you should think of your tilt when you see ideology in fact checkers That's an awfully convenient way to disregard literally any and all scepticism. Just over the last month the the lab leak theory has gone from conspiracy to a mainstream possibilit…

I agree. But Twitter’s fact checking in India is not about such nuanced matters. Someone literally makes up Hindu-Muslim BS and spreads it on social media when it’s demonstrably false. This is what folks like Alt News do. Bust fake news about “Brahmin priest attacked by Salim” as “A picture of a guy accidentally falling in the pit from 2004”

Re: Twitter begins hiring to comply with India’s new rules

#180

Post by msravi » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

OzyM wrote: post #74

philliphaydon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.…

I mean, I disagree with (some of) platforms' content removal, but I don't disagree with their legal right to do so. If Twitter becomes a propaganda machine deleting any tweet it disagrees with, I think that's shitty and if I had an account I'd delete it to avoid participating, but I'm not sold on why the government should make that illegal . People and private organizations currently have the right to propagandize in…

> without explicitly calling for violent uprisings, etc

So that's the problem in this context. Twitter WAS being used to call for a violent uprising in the name of a blatantly false non-existent "genocide":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773994

To repeat, a farmer rammed a tractor into a barricade causing the tractor to overturn and was killed. The whole thing was clearly caught on camera[1][2]. Within minutes there were blatantly false tweets flying around saying that police had fired on the farmers and there was a genocide in progress (with an associated hashtag). Twitter refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets.

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY