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

Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

restofworld.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 208 posts

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#91

Post by mrzimmerman »

throwawaysea wrote: post #55
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any speech.

Can you prove incitement? Because Twitter certainly did not list out any convincing evidence in their blog post about the ban ( https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... ), instead sheepishly offering up Trump's absence at the inauguration as evidence. It's hard to blame Trump for the Jan 6th riots when 10000 people showed up at his rally that day and only a couple hundred at most went past the…

He also explicitly told everyone to "fight like hell". I mean, if he's using double speak I can't help that but one part of what he said triggered a percentage of the people to try to find and kill US Congress people, steal computer equipment and other office supplies, and kill police officers.

You're asking everyone who watched the capitol riots to ignore what they saw with their own eyes.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#92

Post by foolinaround »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #19
ceilingcorner wrote: post #11

The actions of Twitter regarding the last election have almost certainly guaranteed the rise of foreign social media sites. If they have no qualms restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments. American social media sites really have no one to blame but themselves. I say this from a realpolitik perspective. This was clearly the obvious outcome.

Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any speech.

this is a subjective opinion, at best.

If it is not clear enough to stand prosecution, then it is not 'hate speech' really. There needs to be clear-cut definitions and enforced uniformly.

Twitter has lost that trust, and now raises alarmms across the world.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#93

Post by motohagiography »

The reaction of Koo may be more accurately described as being to globalization and the cultural homogenization it entails than against the largely western right/left divide.

The diversity of opinions on mainstream platforms is starting to resemble being in an airport where you have the choice of mcdonald's, wendy's, burger king, or taco bell if you are looking for something exotic. Sure, it appeals to everyone, except it appeals to their vices and when they don't have better choices. As soon as people can afford better, they switch. From an economics perspective, the mainstream US platforms are an "inferior good." The last 10 years of social media has been a real time spectacle of intellectual mean reversion.

I'm cheering Koo on anyway. They're going after the regional desires of hundreds of millions of people who have a country in common. The bar to creating services like this is really low, and there are so many other huge countries to serve.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#94

Post by saagarjha »

sremani wrote: post #54
sgift wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, there is a state in Europe which had exactly the same position: We are all individual states, we fight with each other, we are weak, we should be together under strong nationalism, so we aren't victims of others anymore and so on. That country was Germany, which unified in 1871. Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing. But you do you. Have fun.

Is Europe a country? Europe and India are different in many ways. Because Indian Nationalism dates back to 323 BC and with Mauryan Empire.

> That country was Germany

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#95

Post by as300 »

webmobdev wrote: post #50
as300 wrote: post #37

I get the impression reading articles like this that the farm bills would certainly negatively impact farmer. See this quote from the article: >The country’s capital city has seen over four months of protest after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government enacted agricultural laws that would adversely affect farmers across India. However, from speaking to people and watching interviews where people discuss *the actua…

> but what separates claims that the farm bill is bad from blatant fear-mongering? The same thing that separates claims that the farm bill is good based on the blatant propaganda of those in power.

I can't tell if you're being serious. If by your answer you mean nothing, are you saying that the farm bill panic is simultaneously both fear-mongering and push back against blatant propaganda by those in power?

If by your answer you mean something else, why didn't you just say so instead of being so cryptic?

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#96

Post by cobraetor »

mrzimmerman wrote: post #91
throwawaysea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove incitement? Because Twitter certainly did not list out any convincing evidence in their blog post about the ban ( https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... ), instead sheepishly offering up Trump's absence at the inauguration as evidence. It's hard to blame Trump for the Jan 6th riots when 10000 people showed up at his rally that day and only a couple hundred at most went past the…

He also explicitly told everyone to "fight like hell". I mean, if he's using double speak I can't help that but one part of what he said triggered a percentage of the people to try to find and kill US Congress people, steal computer equipment and other office supplies, and kill police officers. You're asking everyone who watched the capitol riots to ignore what they saw with their own eyes.

> "fight like hell".

I think taking quotes out of context does not present things as they actually happened or provide a fair analysis. We have to be careful of cherry-picking.

Here's the full context: “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” ... “We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

Per legal scholars, like Jonathan Turley,[1], "those words could be equally consistent with calling for a protest, not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and federal capitals." which explains why the legal system has not been able to convict Trump.

People seem to have varying opinions on this topic, but at the end of the day if you look at the facts, it becomes much simpler to understand.

[1] https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/reckless-rhetoric-is-a...

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#97

Post by foolinaround »

mrzimmerman wrote: post #88
cobraetor wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hate speech inciting violence Interesting, but what I don't understand is ... if Trump clearly incited violence, why was he not convicted? Would you say that the American justice system is not fair? *edit: responding to comment from zimmerman below, I watched the full trial, but have not seen any clear arguments made in favor of proving incitement. The legal scholar Jonathan Turley explains it better: "The reason i…

Because the Republican party decided that because Trump was no longer president at the time of his 2nd impeachment trial he couldn't TECHNICALLY be convicted: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-mccon... Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress seriously believed he wasn't…

you have to check either your biases or where you get your stories from.

If the impeachment managers did this stuff (fake the evidence such as videos, tweets, etc) in a real court, they would face serious consequences.

The Chief Justice recognized it as a sham and did not participate, and one does not need to like Trump to know what this second round was.

The first one was atleast done by the book...

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#98

Post by mc32 »

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #19
ceilingcorner wrote: post #11

The actions of Twitter regarding the last election have almost certainly guaranteed the rise of foreign social media sites. If they have no qualms restricting the speech of the president of America, clearly they’ll have no issue manipulating other governments. American social media sites really have no one to blame but themselves. I say this from a realpolitik perspective. This was clearly the obvious outcome.

Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any speech.

Hate speech should be defined by laws rather than ToSes.

With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking against having pets could be hate speech against pet owners. I mean it could mean whatever the mods want it to mean. You can circumscribe it to only affect people you want affected for whatever reason.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#99

Post by foolinaround »

as300 wrote: post #37

I get the impression reading articles like this that the farm bills would certainly negatively impact farmer. See this quote from the article: >The country’s capital city has seen over four months of protest after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government enacted agricultural laws that would adversely affect farmers across India. However, from speaking to people and watching interviews where people discuss *the actua…

There are some farmers (the richer ones from some states) that will lose out in this farm bill.

The jury is out on whether it provides any benefits at all to the average farmer who hardly has any land to start with.

also, the govt is seen as too cosy with business interests, and there is fears of a transfer of wealth to these corporates.

Re: Koo, India’s free-speech Twitter alternative

#100

Post by ceilingcorner »

cobraetor wrote: post #76
BitwiseFool wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic problem is, how do you define hate speech and what counts as inciting violence? Who are the people deciding such things? If you're a foreign government you do not want some committee of Bay Area Twitter employees deciding that for your national affairs.

These are great questions, and here's my attempt at answering or elaborating on them. > how do you define hate speech Ira Glasser explains it precisely: "When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate ... But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides? ... If the government is going to be th…

I had to do a double take there. Ira Glasser, not Ira Glass.
Post reply on HN