Twitter is blocking tweets that criticize the Indian government(thewire.in)
thewire.in
Twitter is blocking tweets that criticize the Indian government
https://thewire.in/tech/as-covid-19-crisis-deepens-twitter-takes-down-tweets-criticising-modi-government
260 comments
“For profit US corporation fighting foreign government atrocities”
I think that's a bit of an unfair phrasing. How about "Good people upholding their morals instead of dropping them at the door when they go to work"
I really am not a fan of how far we've taken the general image that 'business is business' and a bunch of regular morals are OK to toss out. We should preserve the social stigma we hold against people equally against companies.
I think that's a bit of an unfair phrasing. How about "Good people upholding their morals instead of dropping them at the door when they go to work"
I really am not a fan of how far we've taken the general image that 'business is business' and a bunch of regular morals are OK to toss out. We should preserve the social stigma we hold against people equally against companies.
No. The U.S. 300 million citizen don’t have the monopoly on morals when 1 billion Indians have a different idea about them. So don’t be pretentious, adapt to local laws and let people figure out their own ideas about life. Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. has the wrong laws.
1 billion Indians aren't all supporters of government censorship of criticism.
If the US government enacted some ridiculous law, you would hope that US corporations would try to push back a bit, at least rhetorically, because you recognize that the state isn't its people. Why suddenly the different tone for India?
If the US government enacted some ridiculous law, you would hope that US corporations would try to push back a bit, at least rhetorically, because you recognize that the state isn't its people. Why suddenly the different tone for India?
Plenty of countries in the world have a lax view on nudity, show it on TV, go to the beach naked, have a regulated sex work industry etc.
Yet, since almost all large platforms and payment processors are American, good luck posting photos of sand dunes because some algorithm at Facebook might confuse it with woman's breasts, and I don't see anyone pushing back.
Point being adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say in what's allowed in some country none of them stepped foot in.
Yet, since almost all large platforms and payment processors are American, good luck posting photos of sand dunes because some algorithm at Facebook might confuse it with woman's breasts, and I don't see anyone pushing back.
Point being adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say in what's allowed in some country none of them stepped foot in.
> adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say
I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view.
We may just disagree on where that line should exist.
If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?
I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view.
We may just disagree on where that line should exist.
If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?
We don't have to play pretend, there are countries like Saudi Arabia where that's already a thing. Turns out Twitter happily complies. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi...
The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.
The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.
sinyug(2)
With India’s population size, it’s possible more people support the government than exist people in the entirety of the United States.
Why are they wrong and Americans right?
Why are they wrong and Americans right?
I see rights being of intrinsic value how much a country, both its culture and regulators, protect them can be directly scored. you can argue what exactly those rights should be, and you can argue that a society can still be happy and productive without those rights, but you cannot argue that people have their rights when the gov't and their proxies in the business world suppresses them.
all that being said, I suspect there is less policing of speech on twitter in India then what twitter does to discourse in the states.
all that being said, I suspect there is less policing of speech on twitter in India then what twitter does to discourse in the states.
[deleted]
We are talking about freedom of speech here, not food regulations. Once it goes away, it doesn't come back. Where is the line between "culture war" and "moral imperative"? How far does moral relativism go? A country is gradually turning fascist - will you continue your hands-off policy even as they commit genocide? (A million Uighurs say yes unfortunately).
Countries aren't wild animals, to be observed Attenborough-like but not interfered with. They're people. If free speech is good enough for me then it's damn well good enough for them.
Countries aren't wild animals, to be observed Attenborough-like but not interfered with. They're people. If free speech is good enough for me then it's damn well good enough for them.
A significant part of the world doesn't see what's good for you is good for them.
If they're forbidden from talking, how would we even know?
Indians aren't an alien hive-mind, they're regular people like you and me, and until someone proves otherwise I'm going to assume they don't like being oppressed.
Reality check - Twitter is censoring tweets critical of the government, at government request. Am I really supposed to believe that this government represents the people? Because it sounds less like "cultural differences" and more like bog standard authoritarianism.
Indians aren't an alien hive-mind, they're regular people like you and me, and until someone proves otherwise I'm going to assume they don't like being oppressed.
Reality check - Twitter is censoring tweets critical of the government, at government request. Am I really supposed to believe that this government represents the people? Because it sounds less like "cultural differences" and more like bog standard authoritarianism.
I agree. IMHO, corporations must be hold morally accountable(whatever that is, locally). However, if the local morals say that "It's all about profits" or something permissive then they will operate in oppressive regimes. What I disagree with, is the expectation of enforcing US morals to other parts of the world. If we are going for the moral stance of "should not tolerate censorship", instead of expecting Twitter to "fight the oppressive Indian govt" , it's more reasonable to expect Twitter not doing business there.
So far, as we see with Apple, Twitter, FB, Palantir, Oracle, Cisco and many others, the Americans are fine with their businesses working with those governments.
So far, as we see with Apple, Twitter, FB, Palantir, Oracle, Cisco and many others, the Americans are fine with their businesses working with those governments.
Twitter allows posting of naked photos. I have no problems with this, but should a country's laws against pornography be ignored because "our morals are superior"?
I don't think it's valid to compare different pornography laws with a government censoring criticism. The former has very little societal significance, the latter is correlated with rather unpleasant state authoritarianism.
At the end of the day, this goes back to a debate that's been had here many times before, such as with Google's Dragonfly, which is that is Twitter doing more good being available in India with occasional censoring, or if it do more good if it wasn't available in India all.
I'm not siding one way or another, but it's not clear that taking down the platform as a whole is always a better solution than running a slightly censored one.
I'm not siding one way or another, but it's not clear that taking down the platform as a whole is always a better solution than running a slightly censored one.
> Good people upholding their morals instead of dropping them at the door when they go to work
Who gets to define the "Good people"? We've seen time and again that the social media platforms are far from altruistic and in fact enable movements like Trump '16 and Brexit. I agree with your general point though, we should hold companies accountable to the same rigor that we have for govts and individuals.
Who gets to define the "Good people"? We've seen time and again that the social media platforms are far from altruistic and in fact enable movements like Trump '16 and Brexit. I agree with your general point though, we should hold companies accountable to the same rigor that we have for govts and individuals.
> upholding their morals
What ethics are you talking about?
The ones where they silenced "Far-Right" Sceptics of Corona-Measures in Europe? A rapper responding with "ok, dude" to a trans person? HK Virologist Li Meng-Yan? The government of Hungary?
Or where they permanently ban conservative cartoonists, the MyPillow guy, Project Veritas – but not the Ayatollah?
AFAIC there's nothing special here to see. Standard Twitter Behaviour.
Also OP's critique is misguided, as there is no specific Indian law Twitter would have broken (according to the article) if it hadn't complied with the government's request. Likewise, there was no law forcing twitter to permanently ban the accounts I've mentioned.
Twitter is just a typical SV org, laden with upper-class virtue-signalers, who couldn't even notice their own bigotry if the stench of human-feces covered San Francisco actually made it into their comfy homes.
What ethics are you talking about?
The ones where they silenced "Far-Right" Sceptics of Corona-Measures in Europe? A rapper responding with "ok, dude" to a trans person? HK Virologist Li Meng-Yan? The government of Hungary?
Or where they permanently ban conservative cartoonists, the MyPillow guy, Project Veritas – but not the Ayatollah?
AFAIC there's nothing special here to see. Standard Twitter Behaviour.
Also OP's critique is misguided, as there is no specific Indian law Twitter would have broken (according to the article) if it hadn't complied with the government's request. Likewise, there was no law forcing twitter to permanently ban the accounts I've mentioned.
Twitter is just a typical SV org, laden with upper-class virtue-signalers, who couldn't even notice their own bigotry if the stench of human-feces covered San Francisco actually made it into their comfy homes.
I expect Twitter to do exactly the same thing they would do if the US authorities were issuing a legally questionable censorship order. Fight it in the courts. Fight it in the public arena.
Indian Twitter users and Indian civil society should have just the same expectation of receiving support from Twitter's lawyers as U.S users and U.S citizens get. That's what it means to be a global corporation.
>If Indians believe that they need wider free speech rights or other protections, they need to change their political figures and laws accordingly.
Yes, but that is a process. And part of that process is making a fuss about cases like this. You act as if an order issued by some bureaucrat was itself the law and the will of the poeple. That's completely ridiculous. We would never accept that in a rich western country before it has gone through the courts of law and the court of public opinion.
In my view it is outright racist to expect corporations to put up a public legal fight against questionable decisions by authorities in rich countries but consider the same thing a cultural inevitability in poor countries.
Indian Twitter users and Indian civil society should have just the same expectation of receiving support from Twitter's lawyers as U.S users and U.S citizens get. That's what it means to be a global corporation.
>If Indians believe that they need wider free speech rights or other protections, they need to change their political figures and laws accordingly.
Yes, but that is a process. And part of that process is making a fuss about cases like this. You act as if an order issued by some bureaucrat was itself the law and the will of the poeple. That's completely ridiculous. We would never accept that in a rich western country before it has gone through the courts of law and the court of public opinion.
In my view it is outright racist to expect corporations to put up a public legal fight against questionable decisions by authorities in rich countries but consider the same thing a cultural inevitability in poor countries.
> You act as if an order issued by some bureaucrat was itself the law and the will of the poeple.
I mean, we kind of do act that way. If a given thing has regulations then there almost certainly exists a small office whose sole purpose is to be the button pushers for those regulations, and their word is effectively law unless you're wealthy enough to fight it.
As a comparatively minor example, there's just some guy behind a desk in the MN department of public safety who can unilaterally revoke drivers' licenses without any court's approval or any available appeal's process. The police and the rest of the system are more than happy to enforce that guy's decisions.
*In case there's any ambiguity, the "wealth" mentioned above doesn't just refer to your legal fees, but also to things like being able to afford to repeatedly take a day off work to wait on hold or in a line for yet another round of red tape. It adds up, especially with more than half of people living paycheck to paycheck.
I mean, we kind of do act that way. If a given thing has regulations then there almost certainly exists a small office whose sole purpose is to be the button pushers for those regulations, and their word is effectively law unless you're wealthy enough to fight it.
As a comparatively minor example, there's just some guy behind a desk in the MN department of public safety who can unilaterally revoke drivers' licenses without any court's approval or any available appeal's process. The police and the rest of the system are more than happy to enforce that guy's decisions.
*In case there's any ambiguity, the "wealth" mentioned above doesn't just refer to your legal fees, but also to things like being able to afford to repeatedly take a day off work to wait on hold or in a line for yet another round of red tape. It adds up, especially with more than half of people living paycheck to paycheck.
I wish I could upvote this twice. The double standard is appalling.
My expectation isn't that a US tech company would break local law. It's that it would get out of market where it would otherwise be forced to do things that doesn't agree with some fundamental values of the company.
> some fundamental values of the company
they do you just misinterpreted what the fundamental values were
they do you just misinterpreted what the fundamental values were
My second expectation is that I expect companies not to have "deliver maximum value to its shareholders" as its fundamental value or guiding principle (Unsure if that's what you were alluding to here). That is: I basically expect companies to leave huge amounts of (their investors') money on the table when it goes against the ethical/moral compass of a vocal minority of its users, owners, or employees.
I wasn’t directly alluding to that, more so something like access to a market is more important and maintaining a relationship with the governing gatekeepers of that market is the priority, until the governing body says they cant do an increasing level of business in that government’s markets, thats when the corporation will consider to exit the market entirely
If you want that to be “shareholder value” then sure, but I’m saying corporations don't have strong opinions on anything except antitrust and employees telling them what to do. It is much more predictable along these lines instead of imagining any other abstract expectation of corporations and being surprised over and over again for your whole life.
If you want that to be “shareholder value” then sure, but I’m saying corporations don't have strong opinions on anything except antitrust and employees telling them what to do. It is much more predictable along these lines instead of imagining any other abstract expectation of corporations and being surprised over and over again for your whole life.
Don't be evil.
Unless...
Unless...
[deleted]
> Swiss company doing banking by the Swiss laws in US
In the end, Swiss companies doing Swiss style secret banking in Switzerland were deemed unacceptable to the US and forced to change. It's realpolitik all the way down.
This stuff tends to come down to whether you support the specific policy and outcomes.
Hyped up nationalism is a problem in lots of countries; there's only so much blame you can apply to social media before having to look at other actors as well.
In the end, Swiss companies doing Swiss style secret banking in Switzerland were deemed unacceptable to the US and forced to change. It's realpolitik all the way down.
This stuff tends to come down to whether you support the specific policy and outcomes.
Hyped up nationalism is a problem in lots of countries; there's only so much blame you can apply to social media before having to look at other actors as well.
I don’t know about that, the swiss banks i was aware of getting into trouble with the US were very much not doing business in switzerland.
Understandable you'd think Kinder was a German brand, but they're made by Ferrero, an Italian company.
Ah, I keep forgetting that. "Kinder" sounds very German to me.
It is, German for "Child" (cfr. Kindergarten)
Actually, it's German for "children".
Because the word is german indeed.
Ferrero has an long history in using foreign words in their product names.
E.g.
Mon Cheri chocolate in 1956
Nutella in 1964 ("nut" also not an italian word, which would be "nocciola")
Ferrero has an long history in using foreign words in their product names.
E.g.
Mon Cheri chocolate in 1956
Nutella in 1964 ("nut" also not an italian word, which would be "nocciola")
Then why are people shitting over Google for attempting to created a censored search engine for China? I think the project was called Dragonfly.
Because they're applying Western ideals to a country (or more specifically a government) that doesn't share those same ideals.
Larry and Sergei were of the opinion that any information, even if censored, is better than no information at all.
> "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." [1]
They could have pulled out but they were idealistic and felt that their presence was one step towards making the world a better place. Well, that and
> The Google statement said the tradeoff for going against its basic principle of making the "world's information universally available and accessible" is gaining greater access to a quickly growing Chinese economy.
That's the general gist anyway. I forget the specifics but it's covered in a book called In The Plex[2]
[1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex
Larry and Sergei were of the opinion that any information, even if censored, is better than no information at all.
> "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." [1]
They could have pulled out but they were idealistic and felt that their presence was one step towards making the world a better place. Well, that and
> The Google statement said the tradeoff for going against its basic principle of making the "world's information universally available and accessible" is gaining greater access to a quickly growing Chinese economy.
That's the general gist anyway. I forget the specifics but it's covered in a book called In The Plex[2]
[1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex
I think it's fair to _criticise_ local companies that are giving up certain morals to be able to make business in foreign countries. This creates some pressure and forces companies to consider either keeping the users in your home country happy or to make profits abroad.
We just can't expect the foreign country to change their laws or the company to break those laws.
We just can't expect the foreign country to change their laws or the company to break those laws.
Wasn't Project Dragonfly shut down by internal Google "activists" rather than by outside forces?
I don’t know, should ask them. Maybe it’s because of the Googles PR giving the idea that they are not in the business of making money but organising world’s knowledge? Maybe they should ask Google why they don’t go non-profit.
Maybe Google backed down because damage on the brand in US would be greater than the expected profits from China? Maybe they back down because employees went political and Google didn't want to lose them?
Or maybe they are simply afraid that these new abilities will come back home?
Maybe Google backed down because damage on the brand in US would be greater than the expected profits from China? Maybe they back down because employees went political and Google didn't want to lose them?
Or maybe they are simply afraid that these new abilities will come back home?
Maybe because it's wrong to actively help suppress speech in a hostile country regardless of its legality in that country?
Legal and ethical are not the same thing - something can be legal and unethical, or illegal and ethical.
Legal and ethical are not the same thing - something can be legal and unethical, or illegal and ethical.
Who says what's wrong or unethical? Would you consider unethical or wrong to take people's guns away? UK, EU or Australia might disagree with the US on this.
What about abortion? What about regulation on what goes into your body? What about blasphemy? What about ending your own life? What about pre-marital sex? What about changing your religion? What about drawing Muhammeds cartoon? What about many other things that are right or wrong depending on who you ask?
What about abortion? What about regulation on what goes into your body? What about blasphemy? What about ending your own life? What about pre-marital sex? What about changing your religion? What about drawing Muhammeds cartoon? What about many other things that are right or wrong depending on who you ask?
Just because it's not always easy to get consensus doesn't mean all positions are equally valid.
In countries with rule of law, elections, and free press, the law in that country holds more importance than unelected dictatorships with state controlled media.
Small L liberalism has a lot of values around the things you suggest: free speech, freedom of expression, laws against violence. A lot of these values make the answers to your questions pretty easy. In the corner cases if the country has rule of law, elections, and a free press - deference to their law is probably fine (though not a panacea).
In countries with rule of law, elections, and free press, the law in that country holds more importance than unelected dictatorships with state controlled media.
Small L liberalism has a lot of values around the things you suggest: free speech, freedom of expression, laws against violence. A lot of these values make the answers to your questions pretty easy. In the corner cases if the country has rule of law, elections, and a free press - deference to their law is probably fine (though not a panacea).
I don't say they are all equally valid but what's the solutions here? Impose your own rights as long as you can? I guess that's an option but it leads to armed conflicts.
As for the "US superiority" argument, some argue that US is no different than North Korea, maybe US corporations should consider Nordic morales and laws when doing business in India then? After all, according to democracy index Norway is much more democratic than the US.
People stormed the Capitol a few months back and according to the polls a significant portion of the US population thinks that the elections in the USA are not fair and the sitting president is installed there by a deep state cabal. However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy.
Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?
Sounds ridiculous but only if you are not among the majority[0] of the Republican party voters.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-tru...
As for the "US superiority" argument, some argue that US is no different than North Korea, maybe US corporations should consider Nordic morales and laws when doing business in India then? After all, according to democracy index Norway is much more democratic than the US.
People stormed the Capitol a few months back and according to the polls a significant portion of the US population thinks that the elections in the USA are not fair and the sitting president is installed there by a deep state cabal. However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy.
Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?
Sounds ridiculous but only if you are not among the majority[0] of the Republican party voters.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-tru...
> "some argue that US is no different than North Korea"
I'm not sure anyone actually argues this? If they do they're not really worth your time.
This isn't "US superiority" it's about rights for individuals in a liberal society. If the US fails to meet these goals then it should do better too.
> "However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy."
It's pretty clear cut - lots of people believe insane things, that doesn't make the truth unclear.
> "Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?"
I doubt Indians would ask that, they might ask why a western company is aiding their own government in suppressing the truth about their family and friends dying from Covid though.
I'm not sure anyone actually argues this? If they do they're not really worth your time.
This isn't "US superiority" it's about rights for individuals in a liberal society. If the US fails to meet these goals then it should do better too.
> "However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy."
It's pretty clear cut - lots of people believe insane things, that doesn't make the truth unclear.
> "Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?"
I doubt Indians would ask that, they might ask why a western company is aiding their own government in suppressing the truth about their family and friends dying from Covid though.
>If Indians believe that they need wider free speech rights or other protections, they need to change their political figures and laws accordingly.
That's a wonderful idea. Pity it's censored in India.
That's a wonderful idea. Pity it's censored in India.
>Imagine the other way around, German company selling Kinder Surprise Eggs in US
TIL that Kinder Surprise Eggs are illegal in the US.
TIL that Kinder Surprise Eggs are illegal in the US.
Yep, a result of legislation prohibiting food items containing inedible parts iirc! I always found it amusing.
Interesting, I wonder how they kept skewers and mangos legal.
Unlike AR-15's that kill a great deal more children.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Uh, hello? By law India is a democracy, where it has always been OK to criticize the government - at least up until 2014, when the current government began abusing the British Era sedition laws. I think every Indian on this site is old enough to remember who the protests against the Delhi Rape Crisis and the government response were effectively coordinated on Twitter and Facebook.
Twitter wouldn't have been breaking any laws if precedent weren't being set by this government.
Twitter wouldn't have been breaking any laws if precedent weren't being set by this government.
> India is a democracy, where it has always been OK to criticize the government - at least up until 2014,
1. 1975-77: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
2. 2011: https://www.telegraphindia.com/7-days/when-net-is-gross/cid/...
3. 2008: https://www.theregister.com/2008/05/19/google_india_gandhi/
No Indian politician or government _likes_ criticism. Modi is almost unique in the staggering amount of abuse and vitriol that has been directed towards him over the last twenty years. If it had been any one else, they would probably have lost it by now.
1. 1975-77: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
2. 2011: https://www.telegraphindia.com/7-days/when-net-is-gross/cid/...
3. 2008: https://www.theregister.com/2008/05/19/google_india_gandhi/
No Indian politician or government _likes_ criticism. Modi is almost unique in the staggering amount of abuse and vitriol that has been directed towards him over the last twenty years. If it had been any one else, they would probably have lost it by now.
Modi is also unique in the staggering lengths he goes to maintain a sanitized image of himself and his party online.
You forget how much attack Manmohan Singh and Congress came under during the rape crisis, or 2G scam or CWG scam. Did Manmohan Singh lose it like Modi? Did he force Twitter and Facebook to police their posts and groups? If that had happened, I should have been banned on both platforms by now.
You forget how much attack Manmohan Singh and Congress came under during the rape crisis, or 2G scam or CWG scam. Did Manmohan Singh lose it like Modi? Did he force Twitter and Facebook to police their posts and groups? If that had happened, I should have been banned on both platforms by now.
Okay, what's the expectation here? Twitter fixing the "wrong choice" the Indians made in 2014? That doesn't sound like a democracy to me either.
IMHO, if that's the case Indians need to get a new government and fight their own wars. Why would Twitter be liberating the Indian people? If anything, that "liberation" would come at a cost just as with the USSR liberating Germany from the Nazis, US liberating Iraqi people from Saddam, Turkey liberating Turkish Cypriots from the Greek dictatorship.
IMHO, if that's the case Indians need to get a new government and fight their own wars. Why would Twitter be liberating the Indian people? If anything, that "liberation" would come at a cost just as with the USSR liberating Germany from the Nazis, US liberating Iraqi people from Saddam, Turkey liberating Turkish Cypriots from the Greek dictatorship.
Because Twitter wasn't breaking any laws. Twitter should not be policing content because none of the people posting on it were breaking any laws either. The only laws Twitter was breaking was a skewed interpretation of a British Era law for which the Indian government is twisting the definition of treason.
>skewed interpretation of a British Era law for which the Indian government is twisting the definition of treason.
There you have it. It’s not up to the companies to police, enforce or interpret laws. That’s the states job and if that’s how they interpret it then that’s how the law is. There are other tools to change laws or interpretations.
There you have it. It’s not up to the companies to police, enforce or interpret laws. That’s the states job and if that’s how they interpret it then that’s how the law is. There are other tools to change laws or interpretations.
Last time I checked, it's the court's job to interpret laws, not the legislature's. And from recent past precedent, we know that the courts haven't interpreted the sedition law the way the government has, yet the Modi government does not give a rats ass and continues to trample over them.
>Last time I checked, it's the court's job to interpret laws, not the legislature's
Sure, court of whatever justice system they have in place but definitely not a corporation. If people don't like the way Modi runs the country, including the justice system, they will need to take him down and install someone who will do it the way they prefer. It's unreasonable to expect that a foreign for profit corporation will do it for them.
What happens if the twitter shareholders replace the current CEO and put someone who is willing to do anything for profit and the most profitable way forward is to work with Modi? Will Indians expect Facebook to step in and save them?
Sure, court of whatever justice system they have in place but definitely not a corporation. If people don't like the way Modi runs the country, including the justice system, they will need to take him down and install someone who will do it the way they prefer. It's unreasonable to expect that a foreign for profit corporation will do it for them.
What happens if the twitter shareholders replace the current CEO and put someone who is willing to do anything for profit and the most profitable way forward is to work with Modi? Will Indians expect Facebook to step in and save them?
[deleted]
Imagine the other way around, Italian company selling Kinder Surprise Eggs in US, Swiss company doing banking by the Swiss laws in US, Malta company running gambling in the US by the Maltese laws. Would they be considered fighting the unreasonable food regulations, toppling the oppressive financial laws or pushing against tyrannical gambling laws of the US? I don’t think so.
It's obvious with physical goods. If the goods aren't inline with the country's laws then you can't sell them there. Simple. It's a lot less obvious with digital services. If I run an online service that's a legal entity in the US, with servers in the US, and someone accesses from a different country, whose laws count more? Should I have to write my code to obey every country's specific legal frameworks? What if two countries conflict? Does it make a difference if there are edge servers in the foreign state that do caching? This is not a simple problem.
“For profit US corporation fighting foreign government atrocities” is a deeply flawed idea.
"For profit US corporation doing what the shareholders want" isn't though, and if the shareholders think that being complicit in covering up atrocities reduces their stock value then the corporation has to fight the foreign government instead. That's how capitalism works.
It's obvious with physical goods. If the goods aren't inline with the country's laws then you can't sell them there. Simple. It's a lot less obvious with digital services. If I run an online service that's a legal entity in the US, with servers in the US, and someone accesses from a different country, whose laws count more? Should I have to write my code to obey every country's specific legal frameworks? What if two countries conflict? Does it make a difference if there are edge servers in the foreign state that do caching? This is not a simple problem.
“For profit US corporation fighting foreign government atrocities” is a deeply flawed idea.
"For profit US corporation doing what the shareholders want" isn't though, and if the shareholders think that being complicit in covering up atrocities reduces their stock value then the corporation has to fight the foreign government instead. That's how capitalism works.
IBM more or less actively participated in the holocaust with punchcard technology enabling large scale identification and organization of the atrocity.
Did IBM do wrong it were they just operating in a market with different laws?
How do you decide which violations of human rights are just different laws and which are crimes against humanity?
Did IBM do wrong it were they just operating in a market with different laws?
How do you decide which violations of human rights are just different laws and which are crimes against humanity?
If you think your country's company is doing wrong in a different country by following that country's laws there, push for them to exit that market entirely.
>If Indians believe that they need wider free speech rights or other protections, they need to change their political figures and laws accordingly
And then twitter in India won't ban people just like it does in the US. Oh wait...
And then twitter in India won't ban people just like it does in the US. Oh wait...
If India requires twitter murder a child every time someone tweets, I sure hope they don't just say: "Well, I guess that's just their way of life" and continue operating.
Obviously India is requiring no such thing, but what about when China wants google to build them a censored search engine?
Obviously India is requiring no such thing, but what about when China wants google to build them a censored search engine?
If you're to use a hyperbolic example, at least use a plausible one.
Equating posting anything online to child murder as an acceptable act undoes any sort of point you could be legitimately making.
Equating posting anything online to child murder as an acceptable act undoes any sort of point you could be legitimately making.
I don't understand your point. Murdering children is an unequicoval act of heinous evil, deleting posts from your website is a shady business decision.
Where do you draw the line? Lots of people would say that heavily silencing government criticism is evil. Not heinous evil, but can't we be mad at boring evil?
But this isn't "heavily silencing government criticism". Only 50ish tweets were blocked, for containing misinformation that was intended to cause a panic. That's illegal per Indian laws. Criticizing the government is not illegal, and is allowed. If the government were really "heavily silencing government criticism", we would be seeing millions of tweets and accounts being blocked and censored. Instead, it's a narrow targeted set that did things like use images from other circumstances to make it seem like they were part of the COVID situation.
I'm not really focused on this incident, but the idea that it can be a serious issue for major platforms to control speech.
I didn't say not to be mad at anything, it just seems absurd to compare murdering innocents to twitter hiding tweets in one region.
[deleted]
Google will roll up their sleeves and get the IOT guillotine ready, happily running all their american leftie-progressive marketing back home while they do so. Why not? Apple did it!
jb775(1)
This is a warped framing.
I don't buy moral relativism, it may be legal in China to put the Uyghurs in camps but any company helping to enable that is on the wrong side of history - legality is irrelevant.
Stuff above that threshold (kinder eggs) sure, follow the country's policies - provided the country is a real democracy, with a free press, and rule of law.
I don't buy moral relativism, it may be legal in China to put the Uyghurs in camps but any company helping to enable that is on the wrong side of history - legality is irrelevant.
Stuff above that threshold (kinder eggs) sure, follow the country's policies - provided the country is a real democracy, with a free press, and rule of law.
so many Chinese shills downvoting you, so sad :(
at some point you need to draw a line where "profit is the only thing that matters" ends and some basic humanity should prevail
at some point you need to draw a line where "profit is the only thing that matters" ends and some basic humanity should prevail
It's appalling that you trivialize human rights. You should be ashamed.
Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It damages the commons, which is fragile.
Your admirable concern for human rights is possible to express in a way that doesn't contribute to destroying the community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your admirable concern for human rights is possible to express in a way that doesn't contribute to destroying the community.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Note that these tweets are only hidden for anyone in India (not removed from Twitter) since these do not violate Twitter’s terms but are being forced off the platform by a government order. I wish Twitter would put up a better fight on this, but Twitter, WhatsApp and Facebook have been on the receiving end of criticism and threats by the central government, and it looks like Twitter chooses its battles to ensure its own survival first. What else can we expect from social networks anyway?
Alternatively, they can fight, be banned from India, and then have to compete against Indian Twitter 5 years from now in the international arena.
I'm not familiar with Indian law, but would it be legal for them to be more transparent by replacing the offending tweets with "This message has been hidden in India by order of the Indian government"?
On the other hand, my understanding is that Twitter did self-report these actions to Harvard, so they should be given some credit.
On the other hand, my understanding is that Twitter did self-report these actions to Harvard, so they should be given some credit.
We should expect better: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html
This is a disappointing outcome of our community (software engineers, hackers, builders) and our technology - the web as we've built it.
The promise of decentralized communications empowering people.
We should expect more, those in a position to do the right thing at Twitter should try to do so. I hope long term something like urbit wins out and actually empowers its users.
What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored?
This is a disappointing outcome of our community (software engineers, hackers, builders) and our technology - the web as we've built it.
The promise of decentralized communications empowering people.
We should expect more, those in a position to do the right thing at Twitter should try to do so. I hope long term something like urbit wins out and actually empowers its users.
What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored?
You can only empower people against their government's desire to a certain limit.
The more powerful is the government, the quicker it is at slapping your hand, and the more efficient it is at it.
If you operate in a country, you normally can't avoid the limitations of the country's laws, no matter how nonsensical you might find these laws. Technology does not change this equation materially, given strong enough law enforcement.
The more powerful is the government, the quicker it is at slapping your hand, and the more efficient it is at it.
If you operate in a country, you normally can't avoid the limitations of the country's laws, no matter how nonsensical you might find these laws. Technology does not change this equation materially, given strong enough law enforcement.
What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing. If they don't censor their local employees would be put in jail and they would be banned. Neither seems like it would be any better.
> "What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing."
Sure - if it came to that, try and get Indians access anyway via VPNs, making it easy to access over Tor, helping them get on Twitter anyway.
You can accomplish something by not sacrificing your principles. Doing the right thing matters when it's hard. Anyone can do the right thing when it's also the easy thing.
I'm not a crazed absolutist - I'm pragmatic, I just find western companies repeatedly capitulating to authoritarian countries very frustrating. People have given up their lives to fight for these things and western companies can't even risk getting kicked out?
South Park's Band In China episode was right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
Sure - if it came to that, try and get Indians access anyway via VPNs, making it easy to access over Tor, helping them get on Twitter anyway.
You can accomplish something by not sacrificing your principles. Doing the right thing matters when it's hard. Anyone can do the right thing when it's also the easy thing.
I'm not a crazed absolutist - I'm pragmatic, I just find western companies repeatedly capitulating to authoritarian countries very frustrating. People have given up their lives to fight for these things and western companies can't even risk getting kicked out?
South Park's Band In China episode was right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
People using VPNs can already access the censored tweets. They're only censored in India. I understand the sacrificing your principles argument, but imo the only principle that matters is do what you can to make the world a better place. I don't see how shutting down twitter in india accomplishes that. In fact I'd say shutting down is unprincipled because it deprives literally a billion people of something they might enjoy.
The very same values are not popular in Twitters home country USA anymore, why do you think it's a corporations tree to die under? Ban Tweets and move on.
> What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored?
Unfortunately enlightenment / classically liberal values (different from leftist liberal values) have been on the decline in the US, particularly with younger generations. Free speech is one of those values under attack. Even the ACLU, under different leadership than in the past, is wavering on free speech (https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/). James Kirchick spoke at length about this unfortunate evolution in a recent podcast (https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-...).
The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced our right to free speech over to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Biden even recently said that no constitutional amendment is absolute, which seems like further normalization of erosion of fundamental rights.
With the floodgate of censorship already being opened in the West, it seems there is no one on the side of unfettered speech and intellectual freedom today. At the same time I understand why other nations are wary of both the power vested in social media and the influence of savvy or highly active participants therein. It’s a risk for local culture, politics, and stability to be undermined through that channel. Even European nations are increasingly skeptical of outside influences corrupting their sovereignty (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).
Unfortunately enlightenment / classically liberal values (different from leftist liberal values) have been on the decline in the US, particularly with younger generations. Free speech is one of those values under attack. Even the ACLU, under different leadership than in the past, is wavering on free speech (https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/). James Kirchick spoke at length about this unfortunate evolution in a recent podcast (https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-...).
The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced our right to free speech over to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Biden even recently said that no constitutional amendment is absolute, which seems like further normalization of erosion of fundamental rights.
With the floodgate of censorship already being opened in the West, it seems there is no one on the side of unfettered speech and intellectual freedom today. At the same time I understand why other nations are wary of both the power vested in social media and the influence of savvy or highly active participants therein. It’s a risk for local culture, politics, and stability to be undermined through that channel. Even European nations are increasingly skeptical of outside influences corrupting their sovereignty (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).
> Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced that right to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives.
Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise.
I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope.
> The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer.
I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.
Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise.
I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope.
> The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer.
I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.
> Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech.
I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights.
Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?
I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights.
Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?
> Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future?
https://urbit.org/
I think stuff like mastodon is dead on arrival and will never succeed outside of its extremely niche audience. Urbit has the potential to solve a lot of these issues because of its architecture.
https://urbit.org/
I think stuff like mastodon is dead on arrival and will never succeed outside of its extremely niche audience. Urbit has the potential to solve a lot of these issues because of its architecture.
You don't think urbit is extremely niche?
I think it definitely is currently, but it doesn't need to be.
The design is such that it's possible for it to be as easy to use as FB. Running your own linux server will never be.
The urbit tooling still has a way to go, but it's improving. I'm hopeful that it can get there.
Mastodon is trapped by the problems of the existing software stack - they can't escape them: https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/
The design is such that it's possible for it to be as easy to use as FB. Running your own linux server will never be.
The urbit tooling still has a way to go, but it's improving. I'm hopeful that it can get there.
Mastodon is trapped by the problems of the existing software stack - they can't escape them: https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/
You're going to need to be more specific about how Mastodon is trapped. If I go install it in docker it's going to involve more lines of code than urbit but no user cares about that. If it's hard to configure that can definitely be fixed/escaped.
It has a lot to do with federation issues on the modern internet.
- Version mismatching and updates
- Running the servers (admin, setup, config)
- Spam and problematic users
Urbit ID fixes the spam issue, Urbit OS fixes the admin and version update issues. Mastodon (but really any non-urbit system) is going to always be a mess of dependencies and things that break.
This old post (2010 before urbit was a real thing) goes into most of it: http://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-progra...
- Version mismatching and updates
- Running the servers (admin, setup, config)
- Spam and problematic users
Urbit ID fixes the spam issue, Urbit OS fixes the admin and version update issues. Mastodon (but really any non-urbit system) is going to always be a mess of dependencies and things that break.
This old post (2010 before urbit was a real thing) goes into most of it: http://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-progra...
It does seem niche to me, but I’m not sure I understand it at first glance. It feels a bit abstract. Is there an explanation for someone with no context or expertise?
I don't know the location of any particularly good explanations, but I'd explain it as one part start-from-scratch distributed/federated computing environment, one part community rebuilding an ecosystem and new internet on top of that environment, and one part performance art by making everything different as if plucked from a parallel universe that diverged at the dawn of computing.
This is a pretty good one: https://www.hyperstition.al/post/urbit-an-introduction/
There's also a podcast called Understanding Urbit that's a decent introduction.
There's also a podcast called Understanding Urbit that's a decent introduction.
Correct, I do not think it is realistic to expect Twitter to behave differently. I do not believe it's Twitter's behavior that the original article is trying to highlight.
> I wish Twitter would put up a better fight on this
India banned TikTok last year after the app was determined to be "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". Twitter doesn't want to be next.
India banned TikTok last year after the app was determined to be "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". Twitter doesn't want to be next.
TikTok's ban is different (and arguably reasonable).
The way TikTok manipulates its feed to serve the CCP's interests and influence public sentiment in the country is a threat. Things like downplaying the CCP's invasion of HK.
https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/
That's basically the opposite of what's happening here. TikTok's threat is foreign government manipulation of the public and the block is blocking that government manipulation.
Here if Twitter got blocked it'd be because they refused to implement the government manipulation - it's a difference in kind.
The way TikTok manipulates its feed to serve the CCP's interests and influence public sentiment in the country is a threat. Things like downplaying the CCP's invasion of HK.
https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/
That's basically the opposite of what's happening here. TikTok's threat is foreign government manipulation of the public and the block is blocking that government manipulation.
Here if Twitter got blocked it'd be because they refused to implement the government manipulation - it's a difference in kind.
But from the point of view of the Indian government, those two "opposite" things are the same.
All this is built on the terrible assumption that Social Media is critical to solving complex problems of society.
All they do is dump waste amounts of shit on the plates of decision makers and then crucify them for problems no one can solve or have capacities to solve only badly.
People think this is a great way to take out buffons like Modi or Trump. But the truth is such systems will take out anyone propped up especially dealing with complex problems.
All they do is dump waste amounts of shit on the plates of decision makers and then crucify them for problems no one can solve or have capacities to solve only badly.
People think this is a great way to take out buffons like Modi or Trump. But the truth is such systems will take out anyone propped up especially dealing with complex problems.
I don't think social media is inherently bad. It's just easy to weaponize it given enough resources.
If people continue to believe that public posts on Twitter and Facebook accurately reflect reality, and it's possible for governments to silently (or not silently!) censor those platforms, then social media becomes an incredibly effective tool for propaganda.
My personal solution is not to use any public social medium (places where I consume posts from anonymous strangers) except HN. Unfortunately that solution can't scale.
If people continue to believe that public posts on Twitter and Facebook accurately reflect reality, and it's possible for governments to silently (or not silently!) censor those platforms, then social media becomes an incredibly effective tool for propaganda.
My personal solution is not to use any public social medium (places where I consume posts from anonymous strangers) except HN. Unfortunately that solution can't scale.
Its lose-lose for everyone working on complex stuff.
Leaders of all stripes will lose no matter what position they take on anything Complex, as social media enables the mob to immediately point out flaws and crucify them.
No one can lead in those conditions. Only the crazy or totally stupid will end up getting propped into leadership roles.
Leaders of all stripes will lose no matter what position they take on anything Complex, as social media enables the mob to immediately point out flaws and crucify them.
No one can lead in those conditions. Only the crazy or totally stupid will end up getting propped into leadership roles.
How is Twitter going to fight exactly? They can be banned nationwide (and local employees can face charges) with one order from the central government, and no court can help them. Same happened to TikTok last year.
So how i can view it to see if those are what the govt claims?
Twitter fought a court battle on this in India just a few months ago[a], [b]. The government even threatened Twitter Execs with jail time[0], [1].
Making this worse are the new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Intermediary Rules”)[3]. Among the many issues, they increase obligations on large social media platforms (above 5e5 users), enforce government takedowns within 36 hours, enable mandatory social media verification, enforce algorithmic (AI-driven) censorship and change intermediary liability to criminal. IFF has gotten one victory against these in court[2], but there's a long way to go.
[0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-threatens-twitter-with-pe...
[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/india-threa...
[a]: https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/01/twitter-restricts-over-a-d...
[b]: https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/india-sends-warning-to-twi...
[3]: https://internetfreedom.in/intermediaries-rules-2021/
[2]: https://internetfreedom.in/kerala-hc-grants-a-stay-of-the-op...
Making this worse are the new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (the “Intermediary Rules”)[3]. Among the many issues, they increase obligations on large social media platforms (above 5e5 users), enforce government takedowns within 36 hours, enable mandatory social media verification, enforce algorithmic (AI-driven) censorship and change intermediary liability to criminal. IFF has gotten one victory against these in court[2], but there's a long way to go.
[0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-threatens-twitter-with-pe...
[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/india-threa...
[a]: https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/01/twitter-restricts-over-a-d...
[b]: https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/03/india-sends-warning-to-twi...
[3]: https://internetfreedom.in/intermediaries-rules-2021/
[2]: https://internetfreedom.in/kerala-hc-grants-a-stay-of-the-op...
If Twitter obeys the government's order and censors tweets critical of the government, while tweets about the censorship are still visible, then the Streisand Effect will amplify the message that the government is trying to suppress.
Usually yes, but Indian government’a propaganda machine is strong. Heck, if you open Twitter’s COVID timeline (which they feature heavily), it only shows official tweets from the Government on COVID.
All of them downplaying the pandemic, praising the handling, and painting a rosy picture.
All of them downplaying the pandemic, praising the handling, and painting a rosy picture.
why would you abbreviate 500000 as 5e5 and not say 500K or 500,000?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh is an Indian unit. They write five lakh where I'd write half a million.
Yup, the number in my head was 5 lakh and it doesn't occur to me to write it as 0.5M.
I've been forcing myself to remember lakh=1e5,crore=1e7,million=1e6 while doing calculations these days, so just happened to write it that way.
I've been forcing myself to remember lakh=1e5,crore=1e7,million=1e6 while doing calculations these days, so just happened to write it that way.
The information being blocked down the memory hole is just for the people that need to see that information. Concentration in the tech world to so few platforms is helping build that memory hole capability.
At least people outside can see that information, not ideal though. If we had more platforms and less concentration it would be harder to build these walls.
At least people outside can see that information, not ideal though. If we had more platforms and less concentration it would be harder to build these walls.
The government believes that hiding data is the answer to the problem.
> “It’s a complete massacre of data,” said Bhramar Mukherjee, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan who has been following India closely. “From all the modeling we’ve done, we believe the true number of deaths is two to five times what is being reported.” [0]
A related comment [1] on censorship in India.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/asia/india-coronavi...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26928462
> “It’s a complete massacre of data,” said Bhramar Mukherjee, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan who has been following India closely. “From all the modeling we’ve done, we believe the true number of deaths is two to five times what is being reported.” [0]
A related comment [1] on censorship in India.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/asia/india-coronavi...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26928462
Or maybe their model is wrong.
To say that reality is wrong when the reality doesn't match somebody's model is peak absurdity
To say that reality is wrong when the reality doesn't match somebody's model is peak absurdity
Seems pretty likely that the model underestimates the causalities.
https://twitter.com/ARUNSHARMAJI/status/1385439504136237067
https://twitter.com/ahmermkhan/status/1386614534748590083
https://twitter.com/NicolaCareem/status/1386357371652526082
https://twitter.com/ARUNSHARMAJI/status/1385439504136237067
https://twitter.com/ahmermkhan/status/1386614534748590083
https://twitter.com/NicolaCareem/status/1386357371652526082
There is a very important fact that the Anglosphere (and the West in general) misses about India. We are a third world country where the State still has not acquired an absolute monopoly on violence. Most people do not trust that the cops will enforce the laws or that the courts will provide justice in time. Jurisprudence is all but non existent even at the highest levels and judgments depend on the whims and fancies of the judge/magistrate. This essentially results in a lot of disagreements being resolved in an extremely violent manner on the streets.
Under Articles 19(1) and 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, an individual's right to free speech is not absolute.[1] Further, Indian courts have often toed the line and held that maintenance of public order overrides any individual's right to free expression.
Political Twitter in India is primarily used by pro- and anti-Modi groups to abuse each other. Every photograph of a burning pyre and every apology from a media organization is another stick to beat the other with. Anti-Modi media might want to blame everything on the Kumbh and the elections, but this second wave has been noticeable since early/mid February and warnings were coming from states like Maharashtra, Punjab and Kerala. But the state and central governments didn't take these cases seriously till things got out of control. At one point, about 60+% of all new cases and deaths were coming from Maharashtra where there were no elections or Kumbh.
Personally speaking, this censorship is immaterial in the Indian context. If these tweets lead to rioting on the streets and a few people are murdered, that is just another day in India. The only thing I know for sure is that the people who will die are not the ones who tweet.
1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
Under Articles 19(1) and 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, an individual's right to free speech is not absolute.[1] Further, Indian courts have often toed the line and held that maintenance of public order overrides any individual's right to free expression.
Political Twitter in India is primarily used by pro- and anti-Modi groups to abuse each other. Every photograph of a burning pyre and every apology from a media organization is another stick to beat the other with. Anti-Modi media might want to blame everything on the Kumbh and the elections, but this second wave has been noticeable since early/mid February and warnings were coming from states like Maharashtra, Punjab and Kerala. But the state and central governments didn't take these cases seriously till things got out of control. At one point, about 60+% of all new cases and deaths were coming from Maharashtra where there were no elections or Kumbh.
Personally speaking, this censorship is immaterial in the Indian context. If these tweets lead to rioting on the streets and a few people are murdered, that is just another day in India. The only thing I know for sure is that the people who will die are not the ones who tweet.
1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
Situation in India is far grim than Official no. portray. Many district report only <5 Covid deaths adding to the normal death rate of 50-100. But, when you go to cremation grounds they are overflowing, platforms to burn the dead a full and bodies are being burned at sides, footpath.
Unfortunately, it is hard to get those numbers correctly. COVID patients die because of multiple organ failure and unless the deceased was already tested and verified for it, you can't attribute the death to COVID officially. A lot of people pass away without showing visible symptoms or without realizing they need immediate medical attention for COVID.
It would be good to have that attribution and that will require testing the deceased, but given the load on the system, everybody can extrapolate the scale and act accordingly.
It would be good to have that attribution and that will require testing the deceased, but given the load on the system, everybody can extrapolate the scale and act accordingly.
Can't you just compare the average death rate to the current death rate? Unfortunately this site has no data for India
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid#excess-mor...
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid#excess-mor...
Exactly the point I am making. You can do the analysis and determine the scale but you can't change the official COVID numbers.
In fact, that is even the link you shared shows. It compared the overall death rate with the official COVID numbers and proved the numbers are conservative, in US. Of course.
In fact, that is even the link you shared shows. It compared the overall death rate with the official COVID numbers and proved the numbers are conservative, in US. Of course.
The NYT did a deep dive in an Indian city using this methodology: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/asia/india-coronavi...
The figures are orders of magnitudes greater than what's reported.
The figures are orders of magnitudes greater than what's reported.
Have you seen them with your own eyes or just posting what someone else said?. These type of comments bodies burned on road sides, footpath were common last time as well.
dont know much about ground reality as i am not living in India but i saw this post (very sad, no matter if anyone is at fault or not)
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/ghaziabad-cre...
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/ghaziabad-cre...
Not by eyes, but heard from eyewitness. I know of people who are burned this way.
It is 2021, we should have decentralised authenticated version of text board by now. All the bs about crypto disruption, but nothing for such simple case.
www.manyver.se
You can run your own software on your own server easily enough. Even easier to run the software of your choice on a rented server. Why do you think that you’re stuck with twitter?
Unmoderated social media (which I'm guessing is your goal with decentralization) tends to accumulate people who have been kicked off all moderated social media - see stuff like Parler, Ruqqus, etc.
I don't think removing all ability for moderation is a good idea, more of a balance is necessary.
I don't think removing all ability for moderation is a good idea, more of a balance is necessary.
What's the problem with that? You don't have to read these people's posts if you don't like them, just like I don't have to watch conspiracy bullshit on youtube. Maybe I want to read these folks' posts! The platform shouldn't make that decision for me.
With well designed communication tools, you don't need moderators to decide what kind of content you see. You and your immediate network will be your own moderators by implicit action and inaction (and if everything is designed right, you can also take explicit action to e.g. drop that flat earth shit from your feed that shows up because your best friend keeps reading and upvoting it).
This is exactly how the real world works too. I choose who to chat and hang out with, I don't need to call cops to remove marketers and idiots from the world for me.
With well designed communication tools, you don't need moderators to decide what kind of content you see. You and your immediate network will be your own moderators by implicit action and inaction (and if everything is designed right, you can also take explicit action to e.g. drop that flat earth shit from your feed that shows up because your best friend keeps reading and upvoting it).
This is exactly how the real world works too. I choose who to chat and hang out with, I don't need to call cops to remove marketers and idiots from the world for me.
I think this kind of rebuttal is a bit narrowly-scoped. It's not like we made social media centralized and controlled by a few people BECAUSE other systems were unmanageable/impossible to moderate. We never even got to see a world were users own their social media. In such a world I imagine moderation to be in the hands of the users, evolving into a crowdsourced effort in which anyone can implement off-the-shelf blacklists/whitelists. This way no single node can get mass silenced by decree of a CEO or government entity (thus requiring to "run off" somewhere else). You could see it as free market for information exchange.
I think the free speech of posting coronavirus facts is far more important than the danger of dealing with the parler crowd. For people in authoritarian countries like India or Myanmar or anywhere else, it's the government that is the main obstacle to having free speech—not groups of hat-wearing nitwits.
Anyone posting something outright illegal on a social platform is making themselves a target for law enforcement anyway — why subject the entire platform to censorship on their behalf?
Anyone posting something outright illegal on a social platform is making themselves a target for law enforcement anyway — why subject the entire platform to censorship on their behalf?
As an Indian, I can assure you we have plenty of hat-wearing nitwits as well, and there's more in common in the ways Trump and Modi got elected than you think.
In case of unmoderated social media, just because law enforcement goes after them doesn't mean the content doesn't need to be taken down sometimes. Think non-consensual nudes, calls to extremism, etc. These things are filtered out because at some point even Parler and Ruqqus and all will delete them. But completely unmoderated social media will not allow for that.
I also never said that free speech was less important than dealing with the Parler crowd. I'm just saying it's a harder problem than it's made out to be.
In case of unmoderated social media, just because law enforcement goes after them doesn't mean the content doesn't need to be taken down sometimes. Think non-consensual nudes, calls to extremism, etc. These things are filtered out because at some point even Parler and Ruqqus and all will delete them. But completely unmoderated social media will not allow for that.
I also never said that free speech was less important than dealing with the Parler crowd. I'm just saying it's a harder problem than it's made out to be.
If you have an upvote/downvote system that requires authentication, thresholds of useful upvoted activity to unlock (like HN), and perhaps some kind of spending or at least account balance, you could have a reasonable front page and subforums, and the discouraging noise you describe would only come up if you manually paginated or manually searched/filtered for it. Assuming wide enough usage by the public.
And the first uses of bitcoin where shady, or outright illegal, given those users had the greatest incentives to use alt currencies - this was the main attack by detractors.
Outside of speculation and hype; is there currently much demand for bitcoin as a currency outside of industries that operate in a legal grey area?
Yes, uncensored social media will tend to accumulate people who have been censored, that's the point.
Twitter is moderated, but is also full of political extremism. People leave Twitter all the time.
Moderation is solved problem. There are email spam filters, network of trusted people, proof of work...
Moderation is solved problem. There are email spam filters, network of trusted people, proof of work...
I just read a thread on Twitter where the user complains about the English translation of an anime, and 6 tweets later is saying they don't care about the opinion of "blacks / LGBT" and literally defending Nazis. Can't say the argument for less moderation is appealing to me.
The idea that Nazis are the special case where it is ok to censor people, has simply turned into the habit of labelling anyone you want to censor a "Nazi".
I don’t need someone else to tell me what is right for me to see. I would never do that to anyone else either.
We’re talking text here btw, so CP/gore/revenge porn don’t count because those can’t be transmitted over text (links aside).
We’re talking text here btw, so CP/gore/revenge porn don’t count because those can’t be transmitted over text (links aside).
This network would actually bring MORE moderation. People could subscribe to moderation filters similar way as in adblock. Antinazi, antiantifa, antilgbtq, anti-jehowa-witness... No extremism, just nice business and technical discussion. If some filter curator fails, you just replace its filter with another one.
what stops a "centralized" network from implementing the same thing?
The centralized network stops itself from implementing it. That's what it used to be like on for example Twitter, where people used blacklists. But Twitter didn't want that and they wanted to be the arbiter of what you should or should not see instead.
And if you want to do that as a centralized network, you'll be cancelled by one of services you have to rely on anyways.
And if you want to do that as a centralized network, you'll be cancelled by one of services you have to rely on anyways.
> ...to be the arbiter of what you should or should not see instead.
I can understand the tendency if there's a business behind it, maybe they don't want the homepage to be filled with polarizing, divisive, or nsfw content etc.
But I do like the idea of letting users decide what they'd like to see other than on the homepage, where I would be Ok with some default filters. Maybe they can be disabled for the inclined.
I can understand the tendency if there's a business behind it, maybe they don't want the homepage to be filled with polarizing, divisive, or nsfw content etc.
But I do like the idea of letting users decide what they'd like to see other than on the homepage, where I would be Ok with some default filters. Maybe they can be disabled for the inclined.
Decentralized subnetworks change nothing. The web is already decentralized, twitter is just a popular node. Anything that's popular will face the exact same problem.
It is not the governments duty to maintain an image, citizens or foreign parties are always free to criticise or praise any government. If the government feels something is factually wrong then it can present statements from its press agency but not suppress criticism. This is the difference between an authoritative regime & a democracy.
Whenever we are done with dealing with the pandemic who ever is responsible for giving these orders needs to be trialed.
Whenever we are done with dealing with the pandemic who ever is responsible for giving these orders needs to be trialed.
In too many countries citizens are not free to criticize their government. Foreigners can get into trouble too if they criticize while in the country. Thailand, for example, has strict laws about criticizing the monarchy. Some of us take our right to freely criticize our government without penalty for granted and imagine it applies everywhere, but that isn’t the case.
Exactly, countries need to come clean & mention how would they treat non-citizens whether physically present or digitally participating
If you visit a foreign country you need to learn about the laws that may affect you. Plenty of sources for that — travel guide books, State Dept. web site.
As for digitally participating, you probably can’t face prosecution outside the country, but if you visit later you might get arrested. Violating Thailand’s lese majeste laws is not a crime outside of Thailand, for example, but you can be held responsible for social media posts if you come under Thai jurisdiction.
As for digitally participating, you probably can’t face prosecution outside the country, but if you visit later you might get arrested. Violating Thailand’s lese majeste laws is not a crime outside of Thailand, for example, but you can be held responsible for social media posts if you come under Thai jurisdiction.
The vast majority of Indians approve of Modi's premiership. Everyone is aware that it's an authoritarian regime, they don't mind. He has complete control over the courts, so I don't see how a trial could accomplish anything other than further cement his regime.
Ah "the government that I don't like is authoritarian" logic.
This government originally asked everyone to impose self lockdowns before real lockdowns became necessary. Surely what an authoritarian government would do.
This government originally asked everyone to impose self lockdowns before real lockdowns became necessary. Surely what an authoritarian government would do.
Lol, so your justification is that one act of asking people to self-control is supposed to detract from our objection to being silenced for criticism or so called public image?? GTFO & learn about what exactly the constitution provides for & what kind of policy exists around the democratic world.
If it's unconstitutional go challenge it in the courts instead of bickering about it in "hacker" "news"
Yea and the martial law in muslim states surely is what a non-authoritarian government would do.
I think there is far bigger issue than censorship here.
Significant portion of Indians already think there is big conspiracy behind Covid19 and everyone (Media, Governments, Healthcare professions, Big businesses, Pharma) is it to "$Insert your conspiracy here".
Now they see tweets being deleted just for being critical on government handling of issue. Doesn't that add fuel to conspiracy theories?
Significant portion of Indians already think there is big conspiracy behind Covid19 and everyone (Media, Governments, Healthcare professions, Big businesses, Pharma) is it to "$Insert your conspiracy here".
Now they see tweets being deleted just for being critical on government handling of issue. Doesn't that add fuel to conspiracy theories?
Are you under the impression that there isn't a conspiracy related to the virus?
Did Klaus Schwab say "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world"? Did the WEF say "To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism"? Did Justin Trudeau say "this pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset"? Did he repeat the words "build back better" and express support for such an effort? Did Biden and Harris say anything about that? Did Greta Thunberg? Did Cuomo? Did Pelosi? Did both Clintons? Elizabeth Warren? What about Johnson in the UK, did he ever express support for "building back better"? Jacinda Ardern?
The answer, of course, is that they all did, and far more rich influential bigwigs besides those. Do you suppose that they all simultaneously arrived at that wording independently?
Maybe you'd prefer it if we called it a "complex" theory? As in, the government wants more powers, the media wants endless crises to report on, the pharmaceutical companies want guaranteed income and protection from liability, leftists want to make sweeping changes to society and the economy according to their ideas about how the world really "ought" to work, etc.
Did Klaus Schwab say "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world"? Did the WEF say "To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism"? Did Justin Trudeau say "this pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset"? Did he repeat the words "build back better" and express support for such an effort? Did Biden and Harris say anything about that? Did Greta Thunberg? Did Cuomo? Did Pelosi? Did both Clintons? Elizabeth Warren? What about Johnson in the UK, did he ever express support for "building back better"? Jacinda Ardern?
The answer, of course, is that they all did, and far more rich influential bigwigs besides those. Do you suppose that they all simultaneously arrived at that wording independently?
Maybe you'd prefer it if we called it a "complex" theory? As in, the government wants more powers, the media wants endless crises to report on, the pharmaceutical companies want guaranteed income and protection from liability, leftists want to make sweeping changes to society and the economy according to their ideas about how the world really "ought" to work, etc.
Greta Thunberg tweeted by accident some kind of internal memo with their talking points, so there is that.
The reality is that all these powerful people know each other, go to parties with one another, are a part of same organizations like Bilderberg or WEF, and share memos with what are they supposed to say to the public. It's not coincidental and saying that it is is pure gaslighting.
The reality is that all these powerful people know each other, go to parties with one another, are a part of same organizations like Bilderberg or WEF, and share memos with what are they supposed to say to the public. It's not coincidental and saying that it is is pure gaslighting.
Most of the cases are asymptotic. Mild symptons are similar to seasonal fever. Obviously this would make them think its a conspiracy to make money for hospitals.
The situation on ground would vary from cities. Not every city is like Delhi. My small city(compared to other bigwigs in India) as of now has no issues. Health worker said Govt bed are 50% filled. I don't see people outside Govt or Pvt hospitals. But in Bangalore any huge spike(this is huge compared at last Oct peak) would be a very big concern.
The situation on ground would vary from cities. Not every city is like Delhi. My small city(compared to other bigwigs in India) as of now has no issues. Health worker said Govt bed are 50% filled. I don't see people outside Govt or Pvt hospitals. But in Bangalore any huge spike(this is huge compared at last Oct peak) would be a very big concern.
I think they realized that deleting tweets really helps shut down conspiracy theories. The main Twitter account I followed for videos of the pandemic situation in China at the beginning of 2020 was banned just before covid really hit the US. Numerous blue-check accounts (including some fringe “journalists”) had reported it for misinformation and several claimed the situation was not that bad in China and that the videos were somehow doctored. He stopped posting anything about the pandemic on his Facebook and Instagram accounts out of fear of having those permanently banned as well. So censorship can work. The saddest thing is that Twitter banned his account without any government intervention.
EDIT: Not all of reporters I mentioned were fringe. Two were from the Atlantic and Buzzfeed, and both claimed that the Coronavirus situation was overblown and that people saying otherwise were fear-mongering. Helping them out were a couple of epidemiologists who were also claiming that the coronavirus danger was overhyped. This was late January 2020.
EDIT: Not all of reporters I mentioned were fringe. Two were from the Atlantic and Buzzfeed, and both claimed that the Coronavirus situation was overblown and that people saying otherwise were fear-mongering. Helping them out were a couple of epidemiologists who were also claiming that the coronavirus danger was overhyped. This was late January 2020.
Few of the tweets removed are detailed here
https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/covid-pandemic-hoax-to-shari...
Ps : the usual propaganda site or govt mouthpiece claims are bound to come out now. Read the article and make up your mind
Ps : the usual propaganda site or govt mouthpiece claims are bound to come out now. Read the article and make up your mind
This article is an odd choice, though, it's a site that claims to present the "marginalised" Hindu nationalist viewpoint. Very hard to take it seriously.
Did they report the tweets incorrectly?
This is the only unbiased comment which actually shows the tweets which were deleted instead of just presenting a conclusion
Incorrect, the original submission (thewire.in) reproduces several of the tweets.
Medianama, which covered this yesterday, chooses to _paraphrase_ the blocked tweets rather than quote them outright, likely in an attempt to avoid censorship demands. https://www.medianama.com/2021/04/223-twitter-mp-minister-ce...
Medianama, which covered this yesterday, chooses to _paraphrase_ the blocked tweets rather than quote them outright, likely in an attempt to avoid censorship demands. https://www.medianama.com/2021/04/223-twitter-mp-minister-ce...
I was wrong, it looks like thewire.in has gated those screenshots to not be visible from Indian IP addresses.
> A screenshot of the tweet, which now cannot be viewed within India, can be found below.
> A screenshot of the tweet, which now cannot be viewed within India, can be found below.
Opindia is a well-known source of right-wing disinformation. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia
> OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news portal founded in 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal. The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque.
> OpIndia is dedicated to criticism of what it considers "liberal media", and to support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutva ideology. According to University of Maryland researchers, OpIndia has shamed journalists it deems opposed to the BJP, and has alleged media bias against Hindus and the BJP. In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. IFCN-certified fact checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020.
The submitted URL from the wire.in has screenshots of the more significant tweets that were hidden in India despite not violating Twitter policies regarding disinformation.
> OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news portal founded in 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal. The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque.
> OpIndia is dedicated to criticism of what it considers "liberal media", and to support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutva ideology. According to University of Maryland researchers, OpIndia has shamed journalists it deems opposed to the BJP, and has alleged media bias against Hindus and the BJP. In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. IFCN-certified fact checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020.
The submitted URL from the wire.in has screenshots of the more significant tweets that were hidden in India despite not violating Twitter policies regarding disinformation.
Are you saying the tweets mentioned in the article are false? (from Vindos Das, Kapri, Hansraj etc)
I am saying the tweets mentioned in the article are cherry-picked to paint this censorship in a positive light as these tweets contained false claims.
The issue at hand is that the government censored other tweets that are accurate or are statements of opinion rather than on making factual claims.
The tweets mentioned by Medianama and The Wire are are not, by any stretch of the imagination, disinformation.
They blame Modi for mismanagement and conducting super-spreader events. They draw a contrast between the government actions and rhetoric around Tablighi Jamaat (a muslim religious event with perhaps a few thousand participant that happened at the beginning of the panedmic) and the Kumbh mela (a hindu religious event with hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of participants, happening now.) They tweet pictures of cremation grounds.
I don't consider them disinformation, and neither does Twitter (they would have been deleted otherwise.)
I would quote those tweets, but I occasionally travel to India so I do not feel safe doing that. The Wire and Medianama feel unsafe reproducing these tweets, while OP India does not - that should tell you something.
The issue at hand is that the government censored other tweets that are accurate or are statements of opinion rather than on making factual claims.
The tweets mentioned by Medianama and The Wire are are not, by any stretch of the imagination, disinformation.
They blame Modi for mismanagement and conducting super-spreader events. They draw a contrast between the government actions and rhetoric around Tablighi Jamaat (a muslim religious event with perhaps a few thousand participant that happened at the beginning of the panedmic) and the Kumbh mela (a hindu religious event with hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of participants, happening now.) They tweet pictures of cremation grounds.
I don't consider them disinformation, and neither does Twitter (they would have been deleted otherwise.)
I would quote those tweets, but I occasionally travel to India so I do not feel safe doing that. The Wire and Medianama feel unsafe reproducing these tweets, while OP India does not - that should tell you something.
Did you read the article. Once guy posted a old cremation pic as covid cremation happening now. Another posted a pic about a different city as happening in guj(since modis from guj). They are by definition disinformation. Unless you have a source that includes other tweets which are accurate.
For Wire claims it be true while OP claims its false. Obviously OP is more free to diss on that. If the situation was reversed than Wire would have posted and OP not. These are media houses not Truth seeking journalists. Carvan has a tweet about farmer killed by bullet when it was not. Not sure if its deleted now, but it was there for a long time and Twitter did nothing.
For Wire claims it be true while OP claims its false. Obviously OP is more free to diss on that. If the situation was reversed than Wire would have posted and OP not. These are media houses not Truth seeking journalists. Carvan has a tweet about farmer killed by bullet when it was not. Not sure if its deleted now, but it was there for a long time and Twitter did nothing.
I read the post, but it looks like you did not understand my comment.
The OP India article reproduces a small subset of the censored tweets that is disinformation. The government action here is not too problematic.
The Wire article, and the Medianama article, reproduces a different subset of blocked tweets. Those are certainly NOT disinformation, were made by very prominent individuals (elected MPs and MLAs) and were blocked by the government because they were highly critical. This is the problem.
> Unless you have a source that includes other tweets which are accurate.
I do: the wire.in article mentioned above and the medianama article I linked to on another thread. If you are in India you may need a VPN to see them. I am not going to reproduce them here out of the same concerns as the editors of The Wire and Medianama.
The OP India article reproduces a small subset of the censored tweets that is disinformation. The government action here is not too problematic.
The Wire article, and the Medianama article, reproduces a different subset of blocked tweets. Those are certainly NOT disinformation, were made by very prominent individuals (elected MPs and MLAs) and were blocked by the government because they were highly critical. This is the problem.
> Unless you have a source that includes other tweets which are accurate.
I do: the wire.in article mentioned above and the medianama article I linked to on another thread. If you are in India you may need a VPN to see them. I am not going to reproduce them here out of the same concerns as the editors of The Wire and Medianama.
It saw Vindo Kapri name in Medianama article. That is the who posted a old picture as what is hapenning now.
were made by very prominent individuals - does not mean its true. That too coming from elected members, heh even journalist are tweeting incorrect information. Without checking the tweets we cannot come to any conclusion.
were made by very prominent individuals - does not mean its true. That too coming from elected members, heh even journalist are tweeting incorrect information. Without checking the tweets we cannot come to any conclusion.
HN Crowd is so butthurt that when you correctly point out how opindia is a source of right wing disinformation, People feel that they have to down vote you for that.
The list of tweets removed are here: https://thewire.in/tech/as-covid-19-crisis-deepens-twitter-t...
Anybody with a VPN or is outside India can indeed read and make their mind up.
Edit: Every propaganda has an inkling of truth to it. That's why people believe it. And that's how everyone from Goebbels to the current Indian administration operate. Cherrypicking just the obviously fake ones to make your point is silly.
Anybody with a VPN or is outside India can indeed read and make their mind up.
Edit: Every propaganda has an inkling of truth to it. That's why people believe it. And that's how everyone from Goebbels to the current Indian administration operate. Cherrypicking just the obviously fake ones to make your point is silly.
Sadly, any side, not just India and Goebbels, employs this tactic (admittedly to varying degrees). It is apparently to effective to ignore, even if its message is factually correct.
The pics of pyres shared in the tweet were common in India before the Covid started. Just go to any crematorium in India and you will see similar situation, dead bodies keeps on coming and their relatives burn them and do the last rites. Its not new to India, but the way its portrayed that pyres are only due to Corona pandemic is totally wrong !!!
So you are denying India even has a Covid emergency?
I didn't said there is no covid emergency, but tweets which are spreading lies, hoax and demeaning our PM Modi should be taken down, that's what I'm saying !!!
Check a tweet which changes people perception: https://twitter.com/akhileshsharma1/status/13863780415011799...
Check a tweet which changes people perception: https://twitter.com/akhileshsharma1/status/13863780415011799...
The article clearly gives proof to the tweets and images posted were from old incidents, like a tweet posted by Dr. Kafeel Khan, a controversial doctor who is an accused in the Gorakhpur tragedy, shared an unrelated image of funeral pyres as well. But when it came out that the image was from 2017 he appears to have deleted his tweet. Please check !!!
looks like the above msg is being brigaded and downvoted to hide the news
@dang fyi
@dang fyi
Have there been any other known cases of similar action around the world?
Sure: in the United States, social media companies have been diligently removing content critical of government COVID policies and recommendations, even criticism from scientists and doctors who are speaking as professionals.
The US government hasn't requested that social media companies do this, but the result is the same.
The US government hasn't requested that social media companies do this, but the result is the same.
Banning certain tweets related to the Hunter Biden scandal.
Did the Hunter Biden story ever have any legs? As far as I can tell:
1. A grown man, who was not running for president, was doing drugs.
2. He was hired by company to try and gain favor with the White House, which backfired when the White House decided to act against their interest anyways (in other words the guy running for vice president didn't give the company a sweetheart deal because his son was on the board).
Why do people try so hard to force this story?
1. A grown man, who was not running for president, was doing drugs.
2. He was hired by company to try and gain favor with the White House, which backfired when the White House decided to act against their interest anyways (in other words the guy running for vice president didn't give the company a sweetheart deal because his son was on the board).
Why do people try so hard to force this story?
I think the original story was pretty unimportant. But the suppression of the story demonstrated that twitter was willing to manipulate the narrative against the truth, which is consistent with what the right had been saying.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they Streisand effected it into public consciousness. Politics is a bullshit fight. Nonstories get media attention all the time, pushed by status quo narrative manipulators that everyone is okay with. But they turned a nonstory into a story here by covering it up (perhaps with good intent). I think that is what the parent is talking about.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they Streisand effected it into public consciousness. Politics is a bullshit fight. Nonstories get media attention all the time, pushed by status quo narrative manipulators that everyone is okay with. But they turned a nonstory into a story here by covering it up (perhaps with good intent). I think that is what the parent is talking about.
Why did people try so hard to censor this story?
Because people are idiots and would be swayed by hannity sound bites even though the story has nothing to do with Joe?
If that's what you really think, I guess it's an indication of how well the story was suppressed. Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?
>Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?
Again, it doesn't matter? Joe ultimately decided remove the corrupt prosecutor that was helping Burisma. He fucked over Burisma, and their "investment" into Hunter.
Burisma may have tried to pull some nepotism by hiring Hunter, Joe ultimately said "no thanks, Jack", and fucked over Hunter. So the story is... Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?
Given how inconsequential, or rather how the whole story paints Joe in a good light, the media suppression probably has to do more with the fact that the contents of Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked and Giuliani painted an incredibly elaborate story to try and prove how he "legitimately" got these documents.
Again, it doesn't matter? Joe ultimately decided remove the corrupt prosecutor that was helping Burisma. He fucked over Burisma, and their "investment" into Hunter.
Burisma may have tried to pull some nepotism by hiring Hunter, Joe ultimately said "no thanks, Jack", and fucked over Hunter. So the story is... Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?
Given how inconsequential, or rather how the whole story paints Joe in a good light, the media suppression probably has to do more with the fact that the contents of Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked and Giuliani painted an incredibly elaborate story to try and prove how he "legitimately" got these documents.
> Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked
It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.
> Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw
It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.
> Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw
>It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.
This story is deranged and the fact that you believe it with 0 critical thinking really makes me doubt that you are looking at this whole situation critically. It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.
But fine, lets say it's true.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw
Again, what does this have to do with Hunter? The description is wrong, Wikipedia has an explanation of this[1].
Viktor Shokin was not properly investigating Burisma. Biden fired the prosecutor. This fucked over Burisma who was paying Hunter. As a result Joe Biden didn't personally benefit from Burisma.
What did Joe Biden do wrong here? He clearly acted against the "corrupt" wishes of Hunter. Please articulate with words instead of linking YouTube videos.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin#Failure_to_prope...
This story is deranged and the fact that you believe it with 0 critical thinking really makes me doubt that you are looking at this whole situation critically. It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.
But fine, lets say it's true.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw
Again, what does this have to do with Hunter? The description is wrong, Wikipedia has an explanation of this[1].
Viktor Shokin was not properly investigating Burisma. Biden fired the prosecutor. This fucked over Burisma who was paying Hunter. As a result Joe Biden didn't personally benefit from Burisma.
What did Joe Biden do wrong here? He clearly acted against the "corrupt" wishes of Hunter. Please articulate with words instead of linking YouTube videos.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin#Failure_to_prope...
> It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.
Does Apple require any kind of authentication whenever you want to access it from a device that's tied to the same account? I don't use any of the Apple products, so I wouldn't know, but I do still have my old Google account lying around and if you'd have my laptop then you could probably access it without much of a hassle.
Does Apple require any kind of authentication whenever you want to access it from a device that's tied to the same account? I don't use any of the Apple products, so I wouldn't know, but I do still have my old Google account lying around and if you'd have my laptop then you could probably access it without much of a hassle.
Damn, that's a wild thing to say in response to a censorship of a true story. I mean seriously, why even bother having democracy and free speech at this point. How does that make you any different from a dictator that's censoring any story that's unfavorable to him, even if it's something petty and of no significance?
If true it would further a false narrative that they want to push.
PSSST, it never existed!
[deleted]
Twitter has just been sued for defamation by James O'Keefe, who seeks to expose a lot of Twitter's internal decision-making criteria.
It should prove interesting.
https://www.legalreader.com/project-veritas-james-okeefe-sue...
It should prove interesting.
https://www.legalreader.com/project-veritas-james-okeefe-sue...
Can anyone comment on the legality of these orders. Are they codified or arbitrary
Someone in India can perhaps shed more light but from what I read it is legal because the misinformation in the blocked tweets can be considered to be disturbing the tranquility by inducing panic (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nrc-protests-caa-prote...). It seems somewhat like the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” situation, although I understand in the US that ruling was clarified later to be more nuanced.
I could find out but let me just say it’s all moot because at this point almost every public institution is sleeping with the government. Any semblance of independent or counterbalancing institution disappeared long ago. CBI (FBI equivalent), news, courts, election commission, police etc all take direct orders from the central government and don’t operate independently. They are tools to be used whichever way the government pleases.
Some of them were on the path of losing independence. The present government just accelerated the process since they were democratically elected twice in succession by stupendous majority.
So what’s left now for people to raise their voice are these private social media platforms. Ironically Twitter is perhaps the most independent channel in India now.
Some of them were on the path of losing independence. The present government just accelerated the process since they were democratically elected twice in succession by stupendous majority.
So what’s left now for people to raise their voice are these private social media platforms. Ironically Twitter is perhaps the most independent channel in India now.
Decriminalized = not illegal and not regulated
Social media platforms operate in that range, which is another similarity to drugs aside from calling their users “users”
Social media platforms operate in that range, which is another similarity to drugs aside from calling their users “users”
Ironically, looks like this very thread about censorship has been removed from the front page of HN.
Bigots are not qualified to rule/govern a culturally/socioeconomically diverse country like India; They should be banned from contesting elections; Why should we let ~22 crore (voters to BJP) decide the fate of remaining ~66 crore voters?
Twitter India is on payroll of Indian govt. It's not a hidden secret.
The framing of the blocked tweets as ones that criticized the government seems false to me thus far. From what I read only a small number (~50) tweets were removed, ostensibly for inciting violence or panic, via misinformation. The example messages I saw in some articles included fake images from unrelated situations and things of that sort. This seems like what is typically considered reasonable removal of misinformation, but has been framed as censorship by news media. This doesn’t make sense to me as an outsider, since clearly there are millions of tweets happening and a very small number were blocked - if censorship were the goal a much larger number of messages and accounts would need to be blocked.
So then this makes me question why there is so much outrage about this action. Those spinning up this outrage are likely ideologically opposed to the current ruling party in India, and are making an effort to undermine them politically. What has followed, like clockwork, is Western leftist news media and social media amplifying this messaging as much as possible. This is in keeping with the anti-India / Hinduphobic attacks we see regularly here in America in articles criticizing Modi or “news” segments run by outrage dealers like John Oliver.
As a related aside: it’s amazing to see all the American based news sites (Vox, TechCrunch, etc) run this story when they also regularly express support of tech companies practicing censorship per Silicon Valley political biases. Hell, a sitting US legislator (AOC) called for Parler to be kicked off the Apple and Google app stores (a violation of the first amendment), and many here on Hacker News cheered it on, under dubious claims that Trump incited violence even though Twitter’s own blog post on Trump’s permanent ban did not prove anything of the sort (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...). Clearly a double standard is being exercised between America and India.
To be clear I do not support censorship personally. I am for something closer to absolute free speech and letting people figure out what they want to trust and distrust, rather than ceding control to EITHER governments or massive multinational tech corporations. But the hypocrisy here is astounding. When I see manufactured stories like this, I can’t help but think back to what Macron and his government warned about when they discussed the danger of American social media and the “intellectual matrix” coming out of the US (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).
So then this makes me question why there is so much outrage about this action. Those spinning up this outrage are likely ideologically opposed to the current ruling party in India, and are making an effort to undermine them politically. What has followed, like clockwork, is Western leftist news media and social media amplifying this messaging as much as possible. This is in keeping with the anti-India / Hinduphobic attacks we see regularly here in America in articles criticizing Modi or “news” segments run by outrage dealers like John Oliver.
As a related aside: it’s amazing to see all the American based news sites (Vox, TechCrunch, etc) run this story when they also regularly express support of tech companies practicing censorship per Silicon Valley political biases. Hell, a sitting US legislator (AOC) called for Parler to be kicked off the Apple and Google app stores (a violation of the first amendment), and many here on Hacker News cheered it on, under dubious claims that Trump incited violence even though Twitter’s own blog post on Trump’s permanent ban did not prove anything of the sort (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...). Clearly a double standard is being exercised between America and India.
To be clear I do not support censorship personally. I am for something closer to absolute free speech and letting people figure out what they want to trust and distrust, rather than ceding control to EITHER governments or massive multinational tech corporations. But the hypocrisy here is astounding. When I see manufactured stories like this, I can’t help but think back to what Macron and his government warned about when they discussed the danger of American social media and the “intellectual matrix” coming out of the US (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).
India is turning gradually authoritarian following Russia and china, with west turning blind eye, USA had their own problems in trump and right wing, No longer it has wiggle room or leverage to prevent this trend.
Western mainstream media loves it when Twitter censors conservatives, even the president of the USA.
But Western mainstream media doesn't like it when a third world govt tries to suppress fake narratives that could lead to unmanageable civic chaos.
Double standards I suppose.
But Western mainstream media doesn't like it when a third world govt tries to suppress fake narratives that could lead to unmanageable civic chaos.
Double standards I suppose.
Of course they do, they are willing servants of the governments. They also do not permit retweeting or liking a tweet by Martin Kulldorff because he states his scientific opinion that not everybody has to be vaccinated.
https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/13716384856863580...
https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/13716384856863580...
[deleted]
Well.... Twitter can delete or ban anything they want. They are a private company.
We did it before with Trump, and we used this exact reason.
Case closed.
We did it before with Trump, and we used this exact reason.
Case closed.
The headline is rather misleading when read on its own. Twitter didn't choose to block these tweets of its own accord; it did so in response to an order from the government of India.
Twitter will ban the American President but is afraid not to listen to the Indian government. I guess they choose what political parties they want to support.
Twitter waited until a couple of days before the president left office to do that, after waiting through years of flagrant rule violation, and until they were extremely certain of the way public opinion had swung. That was no act of courage from them, it was purely to try and manage public opinion.
No they banned him from posting while he was still in office.
There is a difference in individual vs a government legal order.
Twitter banned an individual Account for violating their policy. Not quite the same as a government forcing them to block tweets.
Most of these type of tweets are just hoax and showing negative image of India, the PM, and the whole Corona Pandemic. Most of the images shows were from old incidents and programs, like the Kumbh mela pics. Thus most of these tweets are removed my the owners themselves either by uproar from followers, public or the government, what's wrong in that? People should not be using twitter for spreading lies, create panic among citizens and false news. And specially "The Wire" who has posted this news and is famous in spreading anti-govt news all the time !!!
agreed. Just look at the words.. DEATH BODIES, FIRE images
The comments here read like most other threads on the Internet. Heavy defence of censorship.
Its a bit like China. When the concept "face" is being compromised, its vital to cover up the issue then to actually deal with the problem.
Its a bit like China. When the concept "face" is being compromised, its vital to cover up the issue then to actually deal with the problem.
India is actually a democracy. For better or worse, I think India has the right to determine censorship policies for its citizens. Foreign Western corporations deciding that they know better than the Indian government and using their platform to spread dissent against the elected government is not a good look for a Western corporation given the history of British East India company.
Wow what a load of crap. So a democracy in your mind can do anything they want because reasons and oh let's bring up the ugly west and colonial times too for good measure...
Yeah I think "democracy" means the exact opposite of what you've said there. The people have asked for free speech, not censorship.
And dragging the British East India Company into every argument about India sheds more light into the inadequacy of us Indians to move past it. We're supposed to be healing ourselves by constructively criticizing our behavior towards others and ourselves...not by endlessly blaming the past for our current actions.
Disclaimer: I am Indian.
And dragging the British East India Company into every argument about India sheds more light into the inadequacy of us Indians to move past it. We're supposed to be healing ourselves by constructively criticizing our behavior towards others and ourselves...not by endlessly blaming the past for our current actions.
Disclaimer: I am Indian.
Democracy and free speech do not necessarily go together. Democracy is a system of government “by the people,” usually in the form of voting for representatives. Censorship and free speech do not necessarily follow from that political system, being more in the realm of basic human rights. Around the world democracy takes many forms. So do cultural and political notions of free speech, and government’s role regulating and censoring speech.
If the majority of Indian people want free speech, but their government does not honor that, then their democracy is dysfunctional and unrepresentative in that regard. A majority of Americans support stricter gun control, but our government does not honor that, so American democracy has its own dysfunctions.
If the majority of Indian people want free speech, but their government does not honor that, then their democracy is dysfunctional and unrepresentative in that regard. A majority of Americans support stricter gun control, but our government does not honor that, so American democracy has its own dysfunctions.
What if, in a democracy, 51% of voters agree to take away the voting rights of the remaining 49%? Would this still be a “democracy”?
Related to this is the question of whether a democracy even makes sense without freedom of speech. How is the voter supposed to know who to vote for if the opposition party is not allowed to criticize the incumbents?
Related to this is the question of whether a democracy even makes sense without freedom of speech. How is the voter supposed to know who to vote for if the opposition party is not allowed to criticize the incumbents?
I don’t intend to argue theoreticals. I meant to point out that democracy and free speech are not the same thing. A hereditary monarchy with no democracy can allow free speech. A democratically elected government can impose censorship and limitations on speech.
Allowing governments to engage in anti-democratic behaviour is not a good look for any company that wants to “serve the public conversation”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944
“Earlier this month, in its annual report on global political rights and liberties, US-based non-profit Freedom House downgraded India from a free democracy to a "partially free democracy". Last week, Sweden-based V-Dem Institute was harsher in its latest report on democracy. It said India had become an "electoral autocracy". And last month, India, described as a "flawed democracy", slipped two places to 53rd position in the latest Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.”
“Earlier this month, in its annual report on global political rights and liberties, US-based non-profit Freedom House downgraded India from a free democracy to a "partially free democracy". Last week, Sweden-based V-Dem Institute was harsher in its latest report on democracy. It said India had become an "electoral autocracy". And last month, India, described as a "flawed democracy", slipped two places to 53rd position in the latest Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit.”
Pretty sure what you are saying is the opposite of democracy.
Free speech is democracy - censorship is not.
Or have they succeeded in redefining it in school textbooks now?
Or have they succeeded in redefining it in school textbooks now?
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Sure free speech is related to democracy, and it's hard to have a successful one without free speech, but democracy does not require free speech.
Dissent against the elected government is a part and parcel of democracy.
EU, Canada, China, Turkey or North Korea - if you want to do business there you have to respect their laws.
“For profit US corporation fighting foreign government atrocities” is a deeply flawed idea.
If Indians believe that they need wider free speech rights or other protections, they need to change their political figures and laws accordingly. It’s unreasonable to expect that a foreign corporation will do that for them, it even might be the case that they(the locals) don’t want it.
Imagine the other way around, Italian company selling Kinder Surprise Eggs in US, Swiss company doing banking by the Swiss laws in US, Malta company running gambling in the US by the Maltese laws. Would they be considered fighting the unreasonable food regulations, toppling the oppressive financial laws or pushing against tyrannical gambling laws of the US? I don’t think so.