Twitter has lost liability protection in India, government says(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Twitter has lost liability protection in India, government says
https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/06/twitter-has-lost-liability-protection-in-india-government-says/
200 comments
>Today, saying that cow dung does not cure covid, can land you in jail because it goes against the government's narrative.
I overall agree with the point that many indian authorities have been using laws to punish dissent, but that is a little disingenuous. The specific context in that case was that those comments were made about the death of a BJP leader. So, those people were jailed for mocking the death of a politician, not for merely saying that cowdung does not cure covid.
I mean, the reality is bad enough as it is. There is no need to exaggerate.
I overall agree with the point that many indian authorities have been using laws to punish dissent, but that is a little disingenuous. The specific context in that case was that those comments were made about the death of a BJP leader. So, those people were jailed for mocking the death of a politician, not for merely saying that cowdung does not cure covid.
I mean, the reality is bad enough as it is. There is no need to exaggerate.
>So, those people were jailed for mocking the death of a politician, not for merely saying that cowdung does not cure covid.
Again, not illegal to make fun of dead people.
Again, not illegal to make fun of dead people.
>Again, not illegal to make fun of dead people.
In India? Who knows? Probably not NSA worthy, but I wouldn't bet against anything being illegal in India.
I certainly know one person who was kept in jail for years for mocking one dead person (PBUH). That person did eventually get out on bail only to soon have his throat cut. But I guess that case ties into mocking religious feelings of a community (but then, so does this case).
Also, I think you probably missed the part where I began and ended my comment by emphasizing that I think this is government misusing the laws to punish dissent.
In India? Who knows? Probably not NSA worthy, but I wouldn't bet against anything being illegal in India.
I certainly know one person who was kept in jail for years for mocking one dead person (PBUH). That person did eventually get out on bail only to soon have his throat cut. But I guess that case ties into mocking religious feelings of a community (but then, so does this case).
Also, I think you probably missed the part where I began and ended my comment by emphasizing that I think this is government misusing the laws to punish dissent.
Depends on the country; in countries like North Korea it'll probably get you executed.
That's bad example, in North Chorea eating too much grass could get you executed as well.
In many countries it is.
It was done in poor taste indeed, but really blatant abuse of the National Security Act. This does appear to be more of a political move than anything. And there in lies the problem when such laws with broad interpretations go into effect, a government in power can leverage it to their gains. All they need is a technicality on which to trap someone.
Actually, there is a much more sinister systematic problem underneath this, which imo makes this sort of political abuse of law to curtail dissent seem like a minor issue in comparison.
India seems to have completely given up on any attempt to genuinely implement common law principles that judicial systems worldwide are based on. Instead of conviction and eventual prison being the goal (along with the presumption of innocence until conviction), our system seems to rely mainly on pre-conviction detention as a deterrent for criminal activities.
All relevant participants in the system (namely the police, the judiciary, the criminals and the citizens) have given in and accepted the fact that convictions are hard and extremely rare to come by. Instead, the process itself is the punishment. The goal of the police is to keep everyone in jail for as long as they can. Judges also regularly deny bail to the accused when they think that there is some preliminary evidence. And the citizens also join in this game by asking for ever stringend laws that make getting bails difficult for more and more cases. (I think most people in India don't even realize that "non-bailable" is just supposed to mean that bail is not automatic, but to be given on the consideration of a magistrate.)
India seems to have completely given up on any attempt to genuinely implement common law principles that judicial systems worldwide are based on. Instead of conviction and eventual prison being the goal (along with the presumption of innocence until conviction), our system seems to rely mainly on pre-conviction detention as a deterrent for criminal activities.
All relevant participants in the system (namely the police, the judiciary, the criminals and the citizens) have given in and accepted the fact that convictions are hard and extremely rare to come by. Instead, the process itself is the punishment. The goal of the police is to keep everyone in jail for as long as they can. Judges also regularly deny bail to the accused when they think that there is some preliminary evidence. And the citizens also join in this game by asking for ever stringend laws that make getting bails difficult for more and more cases. (I think most people in India don't even realize that "non-bailable" is just supposed to mean that bail is not automatic, but to be given on the consideration of a magistrate.)
Well, it seems like integration of J and K and Manipur finally worked itself out after all!
The most sinister issue here is that if india wasnt a key ally against china, pakistan and others in the region it would be called for what it is. It is anything but a “democracy”, and while not at the same level as china treats uighurs or burma its rohinga, india still have the dalit and a rather weird caste system. Also i highly doubt india’s government is democratically elected, given the huge numbers of people left behind and rampant corruption. A shame for a country with such rich history.
Obviously troll comment from a throwaway account with negative karma. I don't know if i should even bother replying.
For the record, this was what was written that got two people arrested:
> Erendro wrote on his Facebook wall: “The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & commons sense. Professor ji RIP”
and
> Wangkhem wrote: “Santhi Sanyung na yadrabo, oh!!! RIP #Rashikang_Kangyet Hayeng nga chaani.” (Rough translation: Cow dung cow urine didn’t work. Groundless argument. Tomorrow I will eat fish.)
> Erendro wrote on his Facebook wall: “The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & commons sense. Professor ji RIP”
and
> Wangkhem wrote: “Santhi Sanyung na yadrabo, oh!!! RIP #Rashikang_Kangyet Hayeng nga chaani.” (Rough translation: Cow dung cow urine didn’t work. Groundless argument. Tomorrow I will eat fish.)
Nobody was mocked. The BJP leader claimed that cow dung cures covid19. He subsequently died of covid19.
The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked. If you want to see mocking in a free country go here https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/ . India is not a free country.
The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked. If you want to see mocking in a free country go here https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/ . India is not a free country.
>The BJP leader claimed that cow dung does not cure covid19.
Source?
>The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked
Now that is just dishonest. Both the posts are available on this link https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...
How is saying "Cow dung, cow urine didn’t work, oh!!! RIP" after someone's death not mocking them?
Source?
>The one sentence post was a PSA that cow dung cures covid19. Nobody was mocked
Now that is just dishonest. Both the posts are available on this link https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...
How is saying "Cow dung, cow urine didn’t work, oh!!! RIP" after someone's death not mocking them?
Are you kidding me?
“The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & common sense. Professor ji RIP,” Leichombam had written
This is mocking? And mocking should lead to many months of nonbailabe arrest without trial? This is one of the most egregious examples of clamping down on free speech. The statement is true and helps educate citizens who are being misinformed nonstop by hindutva affiliates about cow urine.
In a free country we can have forums like this https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
“The cure for Corona is not cow dung & cow urine. The cure is science & common sense. Professor ji RIP,” Leichombam had written
This is mocking? And mocking should lead to many months of nonbailabe arrest without trial? This is one of the most egregious examples of clamping down on free speech. The statement is true and helps educate citizens who are being misinformed nonstop by hindutva affiliates about cow urine.
In a free country we can have forums like this https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/
Guess what https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/leichombam-erendro-supreme-c...
The 37-year-old was held under the stringent National Security Act for saying "cow dung and cow urine don't work." While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time and wanted the case to be adjourned till tomorrow, the judges ordered his immediate release.
"We are of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner would amount to violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We direct him to be released today by 5 pm with a personal bond of ₹ 1,000," a two-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.
The 37-year-old was held under the stringent National Security Act for saying "cow dung and cow urine don't work." While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time and wanted the case to be adjourned till tomorrow, the judges ordered his immediate release.
"We are of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner would amount to violation of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. We direct him to be released today by 5 pm with a personal bond of ₹ 1,000," a two-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.
[flagged]
>Most people are just repeating something they've heard, and couldn't analyze the merits of a claim if they wanted to.
This is something I have thought about a bit over last several years. A lot of people I trust to have good intentions seem to regularly indulge in untruths or exaggerations to rile up support for their cause.
One particular example that comes to mind is how pretty much all liberal voices (including nobel peace prize winner Kalyan Sathyarthi) spread lies about a child labour bill in India that was passed in 2016. All of them were saying in unison that this bill was weakening the existing child labour laws and will allow all sort of child exploitation. So, I decided to read the bill and the original act that the bill was supposed to amend. I was stunned. There was absolutely no truth to the claims. The bill was actually making the child labour law much, much more stringend and I, even with my programmer in bug-fixing mode brain, couldn't conjure up a single hypothetical scenario where a child was forbidden from working earlier would now be allowed to work. So why were all these people lying? Why would Kalyan Sathyarthi, of all people, who has saved hundreds of thousands of children from child labour and trafficking, lie about something that pertains directly to his life's work?
The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
This is something I have thought about a bit over last several years. A lot of people I trust to have good intentions seem to regularly indulge in untruths or exaggerations to rile up support for their cause.
One particular example that comes to mind is how pretty much all liberal voices (including nobel peace prize winner Kalyan Sathyarthi) spread lies about a child labour bill in India that was passed in 2016. All of them were saying in unison that this bill was weakening the existing child labour laws and will allow all sort of child exploitation. So, I decided to read the bill and the original act that the bill was supposed to amend. I was stunned. There was absolutely no truth to the claims. The bill was actually making the child labour law much, much more stringend and I, even with my programmer in bug-fixing mode brain, couldn't conjure up a single hypothetical scenario where a child was forbidden from working earlier would now be allowed to work. So why were all these people lying? Why would Kalyan Sathyarthi, of all people, who has saved hundreds of thousands of children from child labour and trafficking, lie about something that pertains directly to his life's work?
The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
Never heard of it before, but just googled it and it looks like it introduced a new exemption for children to work for their families: https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-new-child-labor-law-b...
Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.
I see. I did some additional googling and I think you're basically right: the family exemption was already in the original bill, and it was merely kept, not introduced, in the amendment. Row 5 in this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference.
So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption.
[0]: https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850
So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that it introduced the exemption.
[0]: https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/850
>and it was merely kept
It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations.
>So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption
I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment.
>>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
>this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference
This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.
It was not merely kept, the scope of the sort of work allowed under that exemption was also reduced to non-hazardous work and that too was only allowed after school hours or during vacations.
>So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption
I pretty much said the same thing in my original comment.
>>The only explanation I could think of is that perhaps the law didn't go as far enough or didn't include certain amendments as they wanted and this was their way of pressurizing the government to listen to them. But that still left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps this is something my brain, trained to value truth above everything else, isn't quite mature enough to understand.
>this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference
This article is definitely more thorough than most others I have read, and at least quotes you relevant passages from the laws and points out all the different ways in which the bill was an improvement. But in the end, even this article ultimately concludes by calling the bill "one step forward and two steps back", which is a lie. The introduction teases you with "Thirdly, the legislation actually reduces the scope and applicability of some of the earlier provisions on prohibition of child labour" but that claim is never substantiated within the article.
> this quite thorough article [0]
Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.
Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.
No. The article goes against what you have been claiming. How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out? Why such shoddy/research or comments on your part?
>The article goes against what you have been claiming.
Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies.
Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim.
>How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out?
Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law.
Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on.
But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
Not really, that article is an example of people spreading the lies.
Perhaps it was not clear to you, but my claim in the previous comment was that a, pretty much all liberal voices were saying that bill would weaken the existing child labour laws and b, that all of them were lying. So the fact that you can find many such articles saying those things is not really inconsistent with my claim.
>How did your programmer brain not see the flaws satyarthi is pointing out?
Because they did not exist. Like I said, I read the bill and the law that the bill seeked to amend and found that there was not a single instance or way in which the bill would weaken the child labour law. In fact, in was very significantly strengthening the child labour law.
Look, I know for you it is just one random person speaking on the internet vs hundreds of sources and people that you inherently trust. So, I can understand if your instinct is to not believe what I say and in that case you are welcome to just ignore me and move on.
But if you actually want to get to the bottom of this, then please do read the bill (now act) and the original law, and you will find that I am right. All you would need to prove me wrong will be a single example, however hypothetical or far-fetched, of a situation in which it was earlier forbidden for a child to work that would have been allowed under the new bill.
You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader. The article is pretty clear. New exemptions are being added to the law. Is this true or false?
He is not imposing any requirements on the reader, just reporting his own experience and indicating how his claims can be double checked, should you so wish.
A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
A claim of "lots of liberal media are lying about an Indian law" cannot be refuted by citing that same media, and making him say it repeatedly doesn't seem likely to yield any further insight.
He could just quote or reference the particular part of the bill/law in question instead of asking the reader to read the entire thing.
He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions.
How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.
He also does not respond to simple yes/no questions. Does the law relax the restrictions on child labour for family businesses- yes/no? Several paragraphs about programmer brain, but no answer to simple yes/no questions.
How absurd is it that several dozen media articles cant be trusted, but an hn comment about programmer brain debugging the law, with no citations, must be trusted.
False.
Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day.
There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more.
>You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader
I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.
Also, I figured out why your username seemed familiar and I do not want to discuss anything with you. Not this. Not anything else. Ever. I hope you will respect my choice. Have a good day.
There is already another person who I am discussing this with, and we are already much along into the discussion that we ever got here. So you can follow that thread to understand more.
>You are simply placing an absurd requirement on the reader
I admitted so much in the previous comment, no? Ignore and move on.
But Uighurs are being oppressed due to religion, it’s just the generic religious oppression that China applies to everyone. Heck, even if racism and dissidence wasn’t involved, there is still oppression that is or was rather common in the rest of China (eg re-education work camps weren’t invented in Xinjiang). There is plenty of room for both sides to play on technical truths, perhaps the same is happening in India (I have no idea).
> But Uighurs are being oppressed due to religion, it’s just the generic religious oppression that China applies to everyone.
Reporting claims that (1) the Uyghurs are suffering under much more oppression than other Chinese groups, such as live-in minders and a legal ban on owning kitchen knives; and (2) this is because of their religion.
These two claims cannot both be true. Islam is one of the traditional religions of China, and it benefits from legal and social recognition not given to e.g. Christianity. You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs. Or to make the argument that reports of the Uyghurs' oppression are accurate. But you can't make the argument that the reported oppression is due to religion, or that it's just another example of the same oppression that other groups experience.
If you asked the Chinese, they'd tell you that Uyghur oppression comes from the Chinese not wanting to have their schools bombed.
Reporting claims that (1) the Uyghurs are suffering under much more oppression than other Chinese groups, such as live-in minders and a legal ban on owning kitchen knives; and (2) this is because of their religion.
These two claims cannot both be true. Islam is one of the traditional religions of China, and it benefits from legal and social recognition not given to e.g. Christianity. You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs. Or to make the argument that reports of the Uyghurs' oppression are accurate. But you can't make the argument that the reported oppression is due to religion, or that it's just another example of the same oppression that other groups experience.
If you asked the Chinese, they'd tell you that Uyghur oppression comes from the Chinese not wanting to have their schools bombed.
That might be true right now, but only a decade or two ago, Hui and Christians were subject to similar oppression. The legal ban on selling kitchen knives isn’t unusual to anyone who has lived in Beijing during a national conference.
> You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs.
Again, that is not the point in dispute. My position is even more anti Chinese than the norm, that what is happening to the Uighurs is bad but just not unusual for China. Your argument against mine then is that things are actually better for the other groups, but you really don’t provide any evidence of that, and I can guarantee you that it’s not (other minorities, Tibetans especially, Christians, especially those outside the official church, Hui over the last decades, re education camps for everyone, etc…).
> You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs.
Again, that is not the point in dispute. My position is even more anti Chinese than the norm, that what is happening to the Uighurs is bad but just not unusual for China. Your argument against mine then is that things are actually better for the other groups, but you really don’t provide any evidence of that, and I can guarantee you that it’s not (other minorities, Tibetans especially, Christians, especially those outside the official church, Hui over the last decades, re education camps for everyone, etc…).
> That might be true right now, but only a decade or two ago, Hui and Christians were subject to similar oppression.
I read you as postulating these facts:
- 10-40ish years ago, Hui, Christians, Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Mongols, pro-reform Han, and various other groups were subject to various repressive measures.
- Today, Uyghurs, Falun Gong, and other ethnic Tibetan groups are still subject to similar measures.
- Hui and Christians are not, today, subject to similar measures.
These facts do not support the idea the the repression of Uyghurs and Tibetans is due to religion. They very much do support the idea that their repression is due to dissidence. Uyghurs and Hui avow the same religion, but the treatment of one of those groups diverged from the treatment of the other. Why? College professors may have avowed no religion at all, but were sent to reeducation camps en masse. (Granted, more than 40 years ago.) Why?
I read you as postulating these facts:
- 10-40ish years ago, Hui, Christians, Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Mongols, pro-reform Han, and various other groups were subject to various repressive measures.
- Today, Uyghurs, Falun Gong, and other ethnic Tibetan groups are still subject to similar measures.
- Hui and Christians are not, today, subject to similar measures.
These facts do not support the idea the the repression of Uyghurs and Tibetans is due to religion. They very much do support the idea that their repression is due to dissidence. Uyghurs and Hui avow the same religion, but the treatment of one of those groups diverged from the treatment of the other. Why? College professors may have avowed no religion at all, but were sent to reeducation camps en masse. (Granted, more than 40 years ago.) Why?
Pivotal moment is when two outcomes are possible in a given scenario. Unfortunately, the current government has support of huge majority of people and is expected to be in power till 2030s. The pivotal moment came and went in 2019 elections and now there is little hope of any push back on draconian laws passed since then. Long has India looked at China in envy and now India is fast becoming China with in its democratic framework while the noose tightens around individual freedoms.
That sounds a lot like the C-10 bill here in Canada.
And yeah the world is steering towards china like totalitarian censorship, but canadians think that since we are a western liberal democracy (tm) it's all fine because we just couldn't be the baddies. Like when we do it it's fine and justified, because why should we even care about muh rights and muh freedumbz in a free country?? The cognitive dissonance is just maddening at this point.
And yeah the world is steering towards china like totalitarian censorship, but canadians think that since we are a western liberal democracy (tm) it's all fine because we just couldn't be the baddies. Like when we do it it's fine and justified, because why should we even care about muh rights and muh freedumbz in a free country?? The cognitive dissonance is just maddening at this point.
Saw this post on Reddit in r/nottheonion and I wasn't surprised one bit seeing the past history of arrests made in India over matters such as these.
Twitter has not had free speech in a very long time. I would be more concerned about India blocking TOR and self hosted forums.
Are you imlpying that Twitter is somehow a beacon and saviour of free speech?
The government being the arbitrator of free speech is definitely a bad thing but that doesn't mean Social media companies deserve a free reign. The local newspaper and TV company in my city are responsible for what they show and print. That's not been the case with SM companies. The result is a massive misuse of Social media by trolls and anti-social elements. Whatever moderation they have in place is clearly not enough.
The article misses some more context.
1. The escalation intensified after tweets by prominent ministers and fucntionaries of the ruling government were marked as "manipulated media" 2. The IT Ministers and opposition partys accounts were locked for copyright infringement. 3. The govt wants twitter to comply on removing content and users critical of govt policies.
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/manipulated-media-de...
[2] https://www.news18.com/news/india/copyright-infringement-twi...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg8pzp/india-wants-more-cont... https://restofworld.org/2021/how-india-fell-in-then-out-of-l...
1. The escalation intensified after tweets by prominent ministers and fucntionaries of the ruling government were marked as "manipulated media" 2. The IT Ministers and opposition partys accounts were locked for copyright infringement. 3. The govt wants twitter to comply on removing content and users critical of govt policies.
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/manipulated-media-de...
[2] https://www.news18.com/news/india/copyright-infringement-twi...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg8pzp/india-wants-more-cont... https://restofworld.org/2021/how-india-fell-in-then-out-of-l...
There is also the context that Twitter refused to remove blatantly false and deliberately incendiary tweets during the farmers' protests in which the Red Fort was breached similar to the Capitol Hill riots.
Also, more recently, Twitter has refused to remove clearly manipulated media intended to inflame Hindu-Muslim communal riots.
Also, more recently, Twitter has refused to remove clearly manipulated media intended to inflame Hindu-Muslim communal riots.
Somehow this does not register well with free speech enthusiasts. As much as twitter removes or labels one set of media, it also refuses to remove or label another set of media.
It is unfortunate that what is true and false has devolved into the hands of global corporates, whose interests and ideology is often different from the environment it operates in.
It is unfortunate that what is true and false has devolved into the hands of global corporates, whose interests and ideology is often different from the environment it operates in.
> Somehow this does not register well with free speech enthusiasts
It registers fine. What you may be glossing over is that Twitter itself has free speech - so it is free to do this, unless you have something akin to a fairness doctrine.
It registers fine. What you may be glossing over is that Twitter itself has free speech - so it is free to do this, unless you have something akin to a fairness doctrine.
Placement of a flag on an empty red fort is simply not comparable to a sustained attack and attempt to kill legislators on Capitol hill.
Can you imagine the Department of Justice declaring Twitter to be no longer protected under section 230, after flagging Trump's tweets?
This feels so, so wrong.
This feels so, so wrong.
The US DoJ couldn't do that because Section 230 in the US is different from Section 79 in India. In particular, India's Section 79 includes the clause:
The provisions of sub-section (1) [the liability shield] shall apply if— ... (b) the intermediary does not— ... (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
The provisions of sub-section (1) [the liability shield] shall apply if— ... (b) the intermediary does not— ... (iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
eh. in india the government sets the boogeyman and the national media as well as the government troll factory just lap it up.
read these posts. india government calls anything critical of its actions on social media as "misuse" because it breaks the image of "worlds largest democracy".
Twitter is being assholes. they should just patch up like facebook which fully complies with government meaning facebook becomes the best monitoring and investigation portal for them. like the last time facebook had found some political influence on their software but once they found the ruling party was involved, they dropped the investigation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/15/facebook-...
https://scroll.in/article/954711/in-kashmir-a-spree-of-arres...
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...
read these posts. india government calls anything critical of its actions on social media as "misuse" because it breaks the image of "worlds largest democracy".
Twitter is being assholes. they should just patch up like facebook which fully complies with government meaning facebook becomes the best monitoring and investigation portal for them. like the last time facebook had found some political influence on their software but once they found the ruling party was involved, they dropped the investigation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/15/facebook-...
https://scroll.in/article/954711/in-kashmir-a-spree-of-arres...
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...
> Twitter is being assholes. they should just patch up like facebook which fully complies with government meaning facebook becomes the best monitoring and investigation portal for them. like the last time facebook had found some political influence on their software but once they found the ruling party was involved, they dropped the investigation
Nah. I like the increased scrutiny against Social Media companies that has come up.
Nah. I like the increased scrutiny against Social Media companies that has come up.
Twitter should patch up and let a billion people have uncertain future on free speech (or at least what's left of it) amidst a blatant dystopia?
well facebook has done the same and they are much bigger than twitter so yeah why not?
the narcissist in chief demands his photo be plastered everywhere. anyone against that image is mowed down.
the narcissist in chief demands his photo be plastered everywhere. anyone against that image is mowed down.
Yes. It feels pretty right that you can't claim you're not editorializing if you decide to censure the leader of the country because of arbitrary reasons, like claiming coronavirus came from a lab is a conspiracy theory.
What happens in India is actually the opposite, it's the government requiring the censuring.
I'm always on the side of free speech. It shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide if coronavirus came from the lab, or if "mail in ballot fraud is very rare, as few as 0.001%" (a completely bonkers notion that was also later debunked, but served to prevent any discussion before the election despite it's absurdity).
What happens in India is actually the opposite, it's the government requiring the censuring.
I'm always on the side of free speech. It shouldn't be up to Twitter to decide if coronavirus came from the lab, or if "mail in ballot fraud is very rare, as few as 0.001%" (a completely bonkers notion that was also later debunked, but served to prevent any discussion before the election despite it's absurdity).
Near the beginning of the pandemic people were told to sanitize surfaces thoroughly as a way to inhibit the spread of Covid. Many people had doubts about this guidance, but if you tweeted that such measures were ineffective, Twitter would censor you and/or label you as a spreader of misinformation. Months later, a study finally confirmed that the chances of catching covid from a contaminated surface was extremely low. Therefore, sanitizing surfaces was no longer recommended or necessary. But it’s not like Twitter’s trust and safety team is going to go back and unban you in light of this.
The key takeaway is, if you are comfortable with Twitter taking such actions with potential ‘misinformation’ then you must also accept that what is considered correct at any point in time is subject to a potential reversal. The staff at Twitter is just as fallible as the rest of us.
The key takeaway is, if you are comfortable with Twitter taking such actions with potential ‘misinformation’ then you must also accept that what is considered correct at any point in time is subject to a potential reversal. The staff at Twitter is just as fallible as the rest of us.
I don't think your story about Twitter banning skepticism about surface cleaning is true. I remember being involved in several long Twitter threads on that topic with no one being banned.
Just because you didn't see it happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If we accept your report at face value. all you've proven is that their algorithm isn't 100% comprehensive regardless of impact/number of followers of the people, etc.
It seems far more reasonable to me that if POTUS or $randomCelebrity tweets something it will get more scrutiny from the moderation efforts at Twitter than I would if I tweeted the same thing.
It seems far more reasonable to me that if POTUS or $randomCelebrity tweets something it will get more scrutiny from the moderation efforts at Twitter than I would if I tweeted the same thing.
My personal anecdote is more proof than what BuyMyBitcoins provided for his assertion.
How can I, as an Indian citizen, "resist" or "protest" these changes? Today the government wants backdoors in social networks, tomorrow they may turn to other aspects.
Also, I would like to point out that the laws should be very different for peer-to-peer encrypted tools like WhatsApp and Signal vs laws for "content-discovery" platforms like twitter and google search. While the government should not concern itself what we speak to each other about as in the former case, for the latter there should be some moderation, just that the government should have some form of moderation along with the actual companies. Anyways I don't care much for the latter group as what I see / discover is already being manipulated by someone. We all want an unaltered version of the news / content but I believe it's an impossible problem to solve.
Also, I would like to point out that the laws should be very different for peer-to-peer encrypted tools like WhatsApp and Signal vs laws for "content-discovery" platforms like twitter and google search. While the government should not concern itself what we speak to each other about as in the former case, for the latter there should be some moderation, just that the government should have some form of moderation along with the actual companies. Anyways I don't care much for the latter group as what I see / discover is already being manipulated by someone. We all want an unaltered version of the news / content but I believe it's an impossible problem to solve.
> How can I, as an Indian citizen, "resist"
Vote and encourage others to do the same, call out fake narratives in discussions with friends and family
Vote and encourage others to do the same, call out fake narratives in discussions with friends and family
>> The move comes as tension escalates between the Indian government and Twitter. Google, Facebook, and several other firms have partially or fully complied with the IT rules, which among other things, requires any significant social media firm (any firm with over 5 million users in India) to appoint a chief compliant officer, a resident grievance officer, and a so-called nodal contact person to address on-ground concerns.
FB, Google have appointed the chief compliant officer, but why Twitter doesn’t want to do it?
FB, Google have appointed the chief compliant officer, but why Twitter doesn’t want to do it?
Because Twitter likely doesn't wants to have the Indian Govt dictate what should or shouldn't be shown on Twitter. Facebook and Google, on the other hand have decided that the business they get in India is worth the censoring/govt backdooring.
Also, it is rather hard to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer considering that this person can get arrested easily. The last interim hire that twitter did quit in a month due to continual gov't harassment;
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/twitter-interim-grie...
Also, it is rather hard to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer considering that this person can get arrested easily. The last interim hire that twitter did quit in a month due to continual gov't harassment;
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/twitter-interim-grie...
One of the things that doesn't get mentioned is that the compliant officer is legally responsible, if the content isn't taken down in a stipulated duration of time. Be jailed, if the company fails to act on any instance. That's a hard job to sell.
> chief compliant officer
A very appropriately worded title
A very appropriately worded title
Why should they comply with traceability law? Signal/whatsapp are also not compliant. Very weird seeing people supporting these draconian regulations.
Can you explain what the traceability law is?
The internet is an oversized megaphone. A couple of 1000 dedicated workers can spread rumours, panic and propaganda.
When you have a country of 1.3 billion people, a large portion of whom also have smartphones, who, unfortunately are also uneducated and gullible, you have the perfect environment to cause trouble.
Apps like WA and Telegram, enable this megaphone to reach every nook and corner of the country.
If tomorrow, there is a coordinated rumour mongering going on, leading to riots and deaths, dont you think those who started the rumour be caught?
When you have a country of 1.3 billion people, a large portion of whom also have smartphones, who, unfortunately are also uneducated and gullible, you have the perfect environment to cause trouble.
Apps like WA and Telegram, enable this megaphone to reach every nook and corner of the country.
If tomorrow, there is a coordinated rumour mongering going on, leading to riots and deaths, dont you think those who started the rumour be caught?
> If tomorrow, there is a coordinated rumour mongering going on, leading to riots and deaths, dont you think those who started the rumour be caught?
There is a constant stream of misinformation spread via government sources in the country. The Indian government over the last 7 years have steadily weaponized social media to dehumanize opponents and carve away rights from a very large section of the dissidents.
This call for war against misinformation that you point to seems to be always targeted towards the government's opposition most times. Can you clarify why twitter should be on the line for this and not most other entities including news channels & politicians who directly preach to '1.3 billion people, a large portion of whom also have smartphones, who, unfortunately are also uneducated and gullible, you have the perfect environment to cause trouble.'
There is a constant stream of misinformation spread via government sources in the country. The Indian government over the last 7 years have steadily weaponized social media to dehumanize opponents and carve away rights from a very large section of the dissidents.
This call for war against misinformation that you point to seems to be always targeted towards the government's opposition most times. Can you clarify why twitter should be on the line for this and not most other entities including news channels & politicians who directly preach to '1.3 billion people, a large portion of whom also have smartphones, who, unfortunately are also uneducated and gullible, you have the perfect environment to cause trouble.'
> The Indian government over the last 7 years have steadily weaponized social media to dehumanize opponents and carve away rights from a very large section of the dissidents.
Would love to see examples. Really curious. Eager to learn.
> This call for war against misinformation that you point to seems to be always targeted towards the government's opposition most times
In general, the media is very friendly to the current opposition, the Congress party. The opposition has lots of connections in established media and some of them are akin to the Fox channels in the US.
Here also, I would love to see specific examples.
Would love to see examples. Really curious. Eager to learn.
> This call for war against misinformation that you point to seems to be always targeted towards the government's opposition most times
In general, the media is very friendly to the current opposition, the Congress party. The opposition has lots of connections in established media and some of them are akin to the Fox channels in the US.
Here also, I would love to see specific examples.
> Would love to see examples. Really curious.
You are either posing this in deliberate bad faith or you live under a rock. WhatsApp is flooded with antimuslim fake videos, lynching, burning, killing of purportedly Hindu people by Muslims. Many of these have been traced to BJP's IT cell.
In fact the IT cell head himself tweeted the identity of the gangrape victim of Hathras although that is a crime to do so according to criminal law.
So it is quite clear where the government's interest lies -- not in stopping government sponsored hate speech and fakenews but as an instrument to suppress criticism.
Given your stance I am beginning to suspect you may be one of those paid shills yourself.
You are either posing this in deliberate bad faith or you live under a rock. WhatsApp is flooded with antimuslim fake videos, lynching, burning, killing of purportedly Hindu people by Muslims. Many of these have been traced to BJP's IT cell.
In fact the IT cell head himself tweeted the identity of the gangrape victim of Hathras although that is a crime to do so according to criminal law.
So it is quite clear where the government's interest lies -- not in stopping government sponsored hate speech and fakenews but as an instrument to suppress criticism.
Given your stance I am beginning to suspect you may be one of those paid shills yourself.
News channels have been on the line for a while. Defamation cases against them are not that uncommon.
> dont you think those who started the rumour be caught?
Do you also want people who expose govt corruption or criticise the govt to be caught?
Do you also want people who expose govt corruption or criticise the govt to be caught?
There are a number of tools available to many who want to securely send data to one another. A bit of internet search is enough to learn.
And those who plan to hurt India, would not use mass communication means in any case.
And those who plan to hurt India, would not use mass communication means in any case.
You don't need Social media to bust Govt corruption. Openly accusing Govt with facts lends much more credibility to the accuser.
The answer should be to educate the people. Judging the progress in the ML research, it is a lost battle trying to "protect" people from propaganda/misinformation. And i don't trust the indian authorities to do it right seeing how opaque the whole system is.
Goodluck trying to educate 500 million. The government can force people to learn stuff(like China) but that doesn't work due to fear of losing elections.
The most wealthiest and developed country in the world, the USA, could not educate its own citizens enough.
And you think a country of half a billion gullible folk need to be educated.
Do you know how much time that will take, and if at all it will be successful?
US politics and the Trump machine have shown that no matter how much you educate people, a small group of people, often available to the highest bidder, will be able to influence millions of people.
And you think a country of half a billion gullible folk need to be educated.
Do you know how much time that will take, and if at all it will be successful?
US politics and the Trump machine have shown that no matter how much you educate people, a small group of people, often available to the highest bidder, will be able to influence millions of people.
If you want to talk about OGWs, let’s start with the BJP IT and WA cell
They should just shut their dev center in India and ask staff to relocate.
The government can easily block them, but the optics of that would not look right. So this whole play around law and regulations.
India could prohibit companies doing business in India from doing business (read: advertise) on Twitter. That's the real threat.
And companies outside India would further think twice before doing any business in india. Its not as if India has a stellar reputation for enabling global countries to invest in India.
This is a bigger issue than it appears and both sides can lose big based on the outcome.
This is a bigger issue than it appears and both sides can lose big based on the outcome.
What it has to do with dev center? Their work is for global twitter platform.
But if they are within India they would be vulnerable to Indian law enforcement.
It makes no difference. They can fine Twitter no matter where they are. If Twitter refuse to pay they can sanction any business using Twitter basically killing Twitter in India. Twitter would do almost anything to make sure this doesn't happen.
AFAIK, there is no India dev center. Just operational centers which oversee the operational and support work done by 3rd party organizations.
They could blacklist the entire country but they would miss on a good chunk of ad revenue.
The best take down of Twitter comes from Jack Dorsey in this interview with Lex Fridman [2020/04/24].
History of machine learning at Square 13:09:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KJz1BVTyU&t=789s
https://podcastnotes.org/artificial-intelligence-podcast/jac...
Square is the anti-Twitter. Square profits from doing good, Twitter from doing bad. Square uses AI for verification, authentication, fighting fraud. Twitter uses AI to signal boost lies.
I always wondered if Twitter was clueless, oblivious, incompetent, or what.
Jack knew. He always knew.
Imagine if Twitter had been run like Square. Imagine that world.
History of machine learning at Square 13:09:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60KJz1BVTyU&t=789s
https://podcastnotes.org/artificial-intelligence-podcast/jac...
Square is the anti-Twitter. Square profits from doing good, Twitter from doing bad. Square uses AI for verification, authentication, fighting fraud. Twitter uses AI to signal boost lies.
I always wondered if Twitter was clueless, oblivious, incompetent, or what.
Jack knew. He always knew.
Imagine if Twitter had been run like Square. Imagine that world.
This is an ongoing tussle with the very legality of these rules being questioned. It's too soon to say what "lost liability protection" actually means. Twitter's responses (or lack thereof) have been a pain to deal with for the government.
What's not clear to me is who will be held responsible on the part of Twitter for any complaints. Earlier, Twitter had provided a local contact, which was that of a lawyer, as the contact for complaints and grievance redressal. That wasn't sufficient since the lawyer was not an employee of Twitter (as required by the new rules). He also left that position soon after. Twitter India has a managing director (MD), Manish Maheshwari, who claimed recently that he was only managing the marketing side and is not responsible for content moderation or anything else that happens on the platform. He was also granted a stay by the Karnataka High Court (which is where Bengaluru/Bangalore is) from arrest in a case filed in another state in the north (UP, i.e., Uttar Pradesh). [1]
I personally don't think Twitter India will find people taking up the positions of Resident Grievance Officer, Nodal Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. These are currently open positions on the Twitter careers page. [2] Whoever takes these up could end up in jail, which could really be bad with a draconian law like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) that allows people to be (arbitrarily) detained without recourse for very long durations. [3]
The new IT rules have also been challenged in court on a few different fronts. "Two of the government’s own legal advisers warned it that the new Information Technology (IT) Rules were beyond the scope of the law and required parliamentary approval." [4]
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/twitter-india-chief-wins...
[2]: https://careers.twitter.com/en/roles.html#location=careers-t...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...
[4]: https://outline.com/hCC7yg
What's not clear to me is who will be held responsible on the part of Twitter for any complaints. Earlier, Twitter had provided a local contact, which was that of a lawyer, as the contact for complaints and grievance redressal. That wasn't sufficient since the lawyer was not an employee of Twitter (as required by the new rules). He also left that position soon after. Twitter India has a managing director (MD), Manish Maheshwari, who claimed recently that he was only managing the marketing side and is not responsible for content moderation or anything else that happens on the platform. He was also granted a stay by the Karnataka High Court (which is where Bengaluru/Bangalore is) from arrest in a case filed in another state in the north (UP, i.e., Uttar Pradesh). [1]
I personally don't think Twitter India will find people taking up the positions of Resident Grievance Officer, Nodal Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. These are currently open positions on the Twitter careers page. [2] Whoever takes these up could end up in jail, which could really be bad with a draconian law like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) that allows people to be (arbitrarily) detained without recourse for very long durations. [3]
The new IT rules have also been challenged in court on a few different fronts. "Two of the government’s own legal advisers warned it that the new Information Technology (IT) Rules were beyond the scope of the law and required parliamentary approval." [4]
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/twitter-india-chief-wins...
[2]: https://careers.twitter.com/en/roles.html#location=careers-t...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Activities_(Preventio...
[4]: https://outline.com/hCC7yg
No one in their right mind would take a position that could get them imprisoned, especially when the government is highly likely to do so.
There is definitely something going on with Indian Govt and Twitter. When the farmer's protest was on its peak, on my timeline I saw Jack Dorsey's activity liking tweets critical and mocking the current govt. I was totally shocked by Jack Dorsey's passive behaviour - you need to model and exhibit non neutral stance especially when you are the messenger of the information. Needless to say, with great power comes great responsibility.
Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world. Blocking Trump because he made calls for violence makes total sense, but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical. If you are publicly expressing your ideologies, god knows what goes behind the scenes at Twitter. I am just wondering what I will do as an employee of Twitter, if I doesn't agree with with the ideologies of my CEO and expressing otherwise. I am not sure ideologies is the right word, but I hope I get my point across.
I always give benefit of doubt where it's due, but Twitter has definitely something sinister going with their Indian Operations. If Indian companies goes abroad they are expected to follow local laws, and if Twitter wants to operate in India it must give way to the law of the land.
Additional Context: Twitter user of 12 years, NRI with no political leanings at all.
One of Twitters recent mishaps: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/twitter-drops-removes-...
EDIT for clarity
Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world. Blocking Trump because he made calls for violence makes total sense, but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical. If you are publicly expressing your ideologies, god knows what goes behind the scenes at Twitter. I am just wondering what I will do as an employee of Twitter, if I doesn't agree with with the ideologies of my CEO and expressing otherwise. I am not sure ideologies is the right word, but I hope I get my point across.
I always give benefit of doubt where it's due, but Twitter has definitely something sinister going with their Indian Operations. If Indian companies goes abroad they are expected to follow local laws, and if Twitter wants to operate in India it must give way to the law of the land.
Additional Context: Twitter user of 12 years, NRI with no political leanings at all.
One of Twitters recent mishaps: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/twitter-drops-removes-...
EDIT for clarity
>I saw Jack Dorsey's activity liking tweets critical and mocking the current govt.
>but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical.
Let's flip the script for a second here. Is a CEO allowed to like a positive story about the Indian leader? Can he retweet a cause he might care about (which many others might not)? Does this mean that CEOs abstain from taking part in public discourse or be called as not 'neutral'?
>Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world.
Can this argument not be pointed to anybody who argues for free speech? Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?
>but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical.
Let's flip the script for a second here. Is a CEO allowed to like a positive story about the Indian leader? Can he retweet a cause he might care about (which many others might not)? Does this mean that CEOs abstain from taking part in public discourse or be called as not 'neutral'?
>Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world.
Can this argument not be pointed to anybody who argues for free speech? Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?
> Let's flip the script for a second here. Is a CEO allowed to like a positive story about the Indian leader? Can he retweet a cause he might care about (which many others might not)? Does this mean that CEOs abstain from taking part in public discourse or be called as not 'neutral'?
Well, you missed very important piece of context from my argument, 'at the peak of farmer's protest' . You already know the sentiments are running high, there is lot of misinformation, wide disconnect between ground reality and digital narrative. A little act of nudge or sign can trigger violence and get people killed on the street. Well, then I am looking at the CEO of the company that is carrying all of this information wether it is true or false, and how he behaves and if chooses sides wether correct or wrong.
> Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?
In my opinion, anyone who understand that free speech has its limitations, I am allowed to say whatever I want in certain context and situation but staying within reason.
Anyone who understands, the difference between shouting 'Hey, I got little firecracker on me' on an Airplane vs someone at a child's birthday party. Some things under different context trigger different reactions. It's not very hard to understand. Now imagine Jack Dorsey liking tweets of a person supporting the group that supports the ideology of those who attacked Capital Hill. Not sure about how other Indian Citizens feel about it, being an NRI of 15+ years I took hoisting of religious flag on Red Fort as an attack on democracy and also akin to attack on Capitol Hill as well.
Well, you missed very important piece of context from my argument, 'at the peak of farmer's protest' . You already know the sentiments are running high, there is lot of misinformation, wide disconnect between ground reality and digital narrative. A little act of nudge or sign can trigger violence and get people killed on the street. Well, then I am looking at the CEO of the company that is carrying all of this information wether it is true or false, and how he behaves and if chooses sides wether correct or wrong.
> Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?
In my opinion, anyone who understand that free speech has its limitations, I am allowed to say whatever I want in certain context and situation but staying within reason.
Anyone who understands, the difference between shouting 'Hey, I got little firecracker on me' on an Airplane vs someone at a child's birthday party. Some things under different context trigger different reactions. It's not very hard to understand. Now imagine Jack Dorsey liking tweets of a person supporting the group that supports the ideology of those who attacked Capital Hill. Not sure about how other Indian Citizens feel about it, being an NRI of 15+ years I took hoisting of religious flag on Red Fort as an attack on democracy and also akin to attack on Capitol Hill as well.
>I always give benefit of doubt where it's due, but Twitter has definitely something sinister going with their Indian Operations. If Indian companies goes abroad they are expected to follow local laws, and if Twitter wants to operate in India it must give way to the law of the land.
Do you believe the Indian government's policies are sinister as well? If not I don't see how this is anything other than apologia dressed up as neutrality.
Do you believe the Indian government's policies are sinister as well? If not I don't see how this is anything other than apologia dressed up as neutrality.
Well, I think the Indian Citizens should decide if their Elected Government has sinister policies or not, and what remedies they have under the democratic processes & constitution. I am not big fan of Modi or pro any political party, but he did not come to power by force. He was elected with a great majority and mandate under what is touted as world's largest democracy.
Coming back to my argument, Twitter should follow land of the law and if not should cease Indian operations. I'd love to hear your counter argument to this.
Coming back to my argument, Twitter should follow land of the law and if not should cease Indian operations. I'd love to hear your counter argument to this.
I wanted to give a little context on how laws in India work. It has to be passed in the lower house (Lok Sabha) and the upper house (Rajya Sabha). While the ruling party (BJP) has majority in Lok Sabha is does not have so in Rajya Sabha. Also note that the members of the 2 houses are elected independently in different elections are at different times. For a Bill to become an Act, it has to pass in both houses and then be ratified by the President. The President and refuse and ask for re-evaluation if he disagrees. So for any bill to become an Act a lot of people across both the aisles (across parties) have to agree. I mention this because inevitably I expect someone to post that this is authoritarian policy (which it is not). While some may disagree a majority agree (including me).
edit: fixed typos.
edit: fixed typos.
This is either misinformation or disinformation.
This set of new rules did not undergo legislative scrutiny at all. In fact, this is the main objection of multiple legal petitions about its constitutionality. Search for "IT rules 2021 ultra vires".
Two departments specifically advised the government that a new law was necessary. They were ignored. https://themorningcontext.com/chaos/did-pmo-get-its-way-on-i...
This set of new rules did not undergo legislative scrutiny at all. In fact, this is the main objection of multiple legal petitions about its constitutionality. Search for "IT rules 2021 ultra vires".
Two departments specifically advised the government that a new law was necessary. They were ignored. https://themorningcontext.com/chaos/did-pmo-get-its-way-on-i...
Have to disagree with your claims. It’s a gross oversimplification of how laws can be passed or enacted in India. Not all laws require both houses to pass them (the infamous Aadhaar Act was passed as a money bill, a case that’s still pending hearing in the Supreme Court — money bills passed by the Lok Sabha are out of the ambit of the Rajya Sabha to do anything impactful).
In this particular case, these are IT Rules that fall under an existing Act (the IT Act). It’s not a new law, which is a problem because these rules fall afoul of what’s allowed in the parent law.
In this particular case, these are IT Rules that fall under an existing Act (the IT Act). It’s not a new law, which is a problem because these rules fall afoul of what’s allowed in the parent law.
The Government and its allies have a simple majority in the Rajya Sabha.
Did the IT Rules 2021 go through the Parliament. I don't think so.
Twitter has likely been subjected to FISA warrants and may have committed to those while remaining silent as the law requires.
Apple complied to investigating Members of Congress when asked by the Justice Department.
When you provide your services in a country you are governed by the laws of the country, e.g. DMCA is applicable in US but not recognised in other countries.
If certain set of laws in a country are incompatible with the principles of your company, you may fall on the sword not offer your services in that particular country. I feel certain that Twitter withdrawing from India will do more good as it may bring increased focus on these amendments and expedite the judicial scrutiny.
Twitter is straddling the fence, trying to malign the government but more often than not governments don’t blink against corporations.
Apple complied to investigating Members of Congress when asked by the Justice Department.
When you provide your services in a country you are governed by the laws of the country, e.g. DMCA is applicable in US but not recognised in other countries.
If certain set of laws in a country are incompatible with the principles of your company, you may fall on the sword not offer your services in that particular country. I feel certain that Twitter withdrawing from India will do more good as it may bring increased focus on these amendments and expedite the judicial scrutiny.
Twitter is straddling the fence, trying to malign the government but more often than not governments don’t blink against corporations.
Related:
India PM Narendra Modi named 'predator of press freedom' - BBC News
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Jm05y2PVn8k
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Jm05y2PVn8k
It's been ages since India has strong hate speech laws that have been used to target journalists(read: defamation). Not sure where were these people till now.
Fire the Indian employees and close your office there, problem solved. The beauty of the Internet is that you don't have to have an office in every country where your service is available.
Not worth when your revenue increases by millions of dollars every quarter.
Peanuts. I am actually angry at companies like twitter and such doing business there while neglecting the plight of the dalit and the raging corruption going on. But like china and uighurs not much we can do about india and its dalit discrimination. Cheap labour and cheap products plus a strategic ally in the region trump human rights.
As much as I don't want to defend the role of the government in this mess, twitter has done a terrible job in the optics dept. They have chosen to ignore steps like appointing people for certain mandatory roles, blocking the handle of the minister responsible for the new law and so on.
It is almost like they wanted this to be a public fight. Is that a good strategy? Fighting the govt is rarely productive, but they probably know something to do this crazy in-your-face stuff.
It is almost like they wanted this to be a public fight. Is that a good strategy? Fighting the govt is rarely productive, but they probably know something to do this crazy in-your-face stuff.
Twitter probably can't appoint people to mandatory roles in every country of the world if the country demands it.
It is different though, when they have a physical presence in India.
It is different though, when they have a physical presence in India.
>Fighting the govt is rarely productive, but they probably know something to do this crazy in-your-face stuff.
Depends on your definition of productive, I suppose.
Depends on your definition of productive, I suppose.
Social media are global sovereign entities and above the governments of individual nations so they do not need to comply with the local laws.
I would much prefer Twitter to ignore the Indian government. American companies should never cave to authoritarians.
Then what should they do when the authoritarian is in the US? Where is the line?
They'll cave to whatever gets them more money. Which is why you see them bow down to China while pushing left wing ideology in the US. They're openly hypocritical and people still think they're altruistic for some reason.
in india at least there is a saying "you are doing this on your own responsibility". and this relates to an employee going for a job or doing something weird or students applying for college. what this means is, twitter is supposed to be responsible for their inability to cooperate with the crony government and any action they would be taking.
Why is a government elected through due process, with free and fair elections a "crony" govt.
I can understand ones hate for the policies of a govt, but this is absurd.
I can understand ones hate for the policies of a govt, but this is absurd.
About one third of the country did not participate in the election. Of the two third that did about 40% did not vote for the party that is in power. So it is oversold that the party has universal endorsement.
Even if it did, that in no way prevents crony governance. The way modern democracies work, once in power governments have little interest in representing those they purportedly represent. Most of the time they are making good of the 5 years they have to enrich themselves and their party.
Even if it did, that in no way prevents crony governance. The way modern democracies work, once in power governments have little interest in representing those they purportedly represent. Most of the time they are making good of the 5 years they have to enrich themselves and their party.
you are all over this thread making bad faith arguments.
Just because a government is elected through the process of voting, does not mean that it is accountable to the people. Politics is a dirty business and that is as true in India as it is in the US. You would struggle to make the case that the duly elected president of the USA, one Mr Trump, was anything but a con-man whose primary aim was the enrichment of himself and those in his circle.
A voting system is just that - a voting system. Don't confuse it with a robust democracy.
Just because a government is elected through the process of voting, does not mean that it is accountable to the people. Politics is a dirty business and that is as true in India as it is in the US. You would struggle to make the case that the duly elected president of the USA, one Mr Trump, was anything but a con-man whose primary aim was the enrichment of himself and those in his circle.
A voting system is just that - a voting system. Don't confuse it with a robust democracy.
> Just because a government is elected through the process of voting, does not mean that it is accountable to the people
Isn't that true everywhere? in every democracy? Why do you think there are three equally powerful branches of govt., the legislation, the judiciary and the military?
Indian constitution has good measure of checks and balances.
If the ruling govt. passes a law, the opposition can always go to court and challenge the constitutionality of the law.
> robust democracy
Tell me what are the facets of a robust democracy and lets see if its applicable to Indian Constitution and political system.
Isn't that true everywhere? in every democracy? Why do you think there are three equally powerful branches of govt., the legislation, the judiciary and the military?
Indian constitution has good measure of checks and balances.
If the ruling govt. passes a law, the opposition can always go to court and challenge the constitutionality of the law.
> robust democracy
Tell me what are the facets of a robust democracy and lets see if its applicable to Indian Constitution and political system.
> Indian constitution has good measures of checks and balances
Occasionally these institutions are manned by people with a spine to stand up to the government. Most of the time they aren't and are at best stooges.
Arnab Goswami (think a cheap Bill O'rielly wannabe) gets bail via a specially expedited hearing by the supreme court, jumping the queue of cases whereas students, reporters languish in jail for trumped up terror charges pressed by these stooge organizations.
Occasionally these institutions are manned by people with a spine to stand up to the government. Most of the time they aren't and are at best stooges.
Arnab Goswami (think a cheap Bill O'rielly wannabe) gets bail via a specially expedited hearing by the supreme court, jumping the queue of cases whereas students, reporters languish in jail for trumped up terror charges pressed by these stooge organizations.
thank you. the idea of the ruiling party and their supporters is that "you elected us so we are free to do whatever the fuck we want and anyone against us is destroying the social fabric of the country by defying authority that elections gave us. "
they murdered an 88 year old activist in jail by prolonging his stay. next hearing, next hearing, next hearing and yesterday he fell to covid.
not to talk about thousands of political prisoners. their anti-terror law recently was found to have 2% conviction rate. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/2/india-terror-law-uap...
essentially they book everyone and anyone and years later they are found not guilty. justice won but the years lost for that person? no compensation for that
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/kashmiri-man-walks-free-af...
12 years this guy was imprisoned.
they murdered an 88 year old activist in jail by prolonging his stay. next hearing, next hearing, next hearing and yesterday he fell to covid.
not to talk about thousands of political prisoners. their anti-terror law recently was found to have 2% conviction rate. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/2/india-terror-law-uap...
essentially they book everyone and anyone and years later they are found not guilty. justice won but the years lost for that person? no compensation for that
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/kashmiri-man-walks-free-af...
12 years this guy was imprisoned.
crony for selling out public infrastructure to capitalists, for waiving loans for billion dollar scammers but farmers resort to suicide when they are unable to pay back their small loans, when "elected governments" act as the nazi party and "image" is worth more than lives of ordinary citizens, when they do as they wish, have people disappear as they like, when journalists are arrested and people killed for speaking against this "Elected government".
yeah, that crony elected government.
edit; https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...
like these journalists. imagine an elected government can arrest anyone over cow posts? either these people have committed such heinous crimes against cows that their incarceration is necessary to protect law and order in cow community or the government has a vendetta against them. I'd go with the latter and with that, your elected government nonsense just flies away
yeah, that crony elected government.
edit; https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...
like these journalists. imagine an elected government can arrest anyone over cow posts? either these people have committed such heinous crimes against cows that their incarceration is necessary to protect law and order in cow community or the government has a vendetta against them. I'd go with the latter and with that, your elected government nonsense just flies away
> selling out public infrastructure to capitalists
Not sure what you mean. If there are any specific scandals you can point out to, I'd be really happy to know more.
Are you suggesting govt. should not contract out infrastructure projects?
> for waiving loans for billion dollar scammers
More than 80% of property/money of such defaulters has been taken back by the government.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/banks-cheated-by-m...
> farmers resort to suicide when they are unable to pay back their small loans
The govt. pays a lot of money to farmers. 21% of farm income is from govt. subsidies. (Subsidies that the US and other developed nations have been fighting to stop, so that they can compete in Indian markets).
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/economic-policy/fa...
Farmer suicides have been more or less constant for many decades now. Its a sad situation and the causes of suicides are many and varied.
The current govt. has brought in a lot of technology driven improvements to distribution of subsidies, eliminating middlemen, etc.
The current farmer protests are mostly by rich farmer middlemen from Punjab, who will see their commissions reduces significantly if farmers start selling in markets with real competition.
> when "elected governments" act as the nazi party and "image" is worth more than lives of ordinary citizens
This could potentially mean very many things. It would help if you could be specific. Just shouting Nazi and lives of ordinary citizens means nothing.
> have people disappear as they like
Not very knowledgeable on this subject. Would love to hear more.
> when journalists are arrested and people killed for speaking against this "Elected government"
Most incidents I have seen are for deliberate instances of mis-information and shoddy journalism, leading to tense situations. I would be glad to hear of any instances where journalists have been wrongfully arrested.
The example you cite is for a journalist who was arrested based on a complaint from a Woman's Union, and that was for his posts of FB rather.
I never support suppression of free speech and news media, but the North Eastern states of India have a unique situation because China is fomenting a lot of separatism within the states and it is internationally knows that it claims Arunachal Pradesh as its own.
Not sure what you mean. If there are any specific scandals you can point out to, I'd be really happy to know more.
Are you suggesting govt. should not contract out infrastructure projects?
> for waiving loans for billion dollar scammers
More than 80% of property/money of such defaulters has been taken back by the government.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/banks-cheated-by-m...
> farmers resort to suicide when they are unable to pay back their small loans
The govt. pays a lot of money to farmers. 21% of farm income is from govt. subsidies. (Subsidies that the US and other developed nations have been fighting to stop, so that they can compete in Indian markets).
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/economic-policy/fa...
Farmer suicides have been more or less constant for many decades now. Its a sad situation and the causes of suicides are many and varied.
The current govt. has brought in a lot of technology driven improvements to distribution of subsidies, eliminating middlemen, etc.
The current farmer protests are mostly by rich farmer middlemen from Punjab, who will see their commissions reduces significantly if farmers start selling in markets with real competition.
> when "elected governments" act as the nazi party and "image" is worth more than lives of ordinary citizens
This could potentially mean very many things. It would help if you could be specific. Just shouting Nazi and lives of ordinary citizens means nothing.
> have people disappear as they like
Not very knowledgeable on this subject. Would love to hear more.
> when journalists are arrested and people killed for speaking against this "Elected government"
Most incidents I have seen are for deliberate instances of mis-information and shoddy journalism, leading to tense situations. I would be glad to hear of any instances where journalists have been wrongfully arrested.
The example you cite is for a journalist who was arrested based on a complaint from a Woman's Union, and that was for his posts of FB rather.
I never support suppression of free speech and news media, but the North Eastern states of India have a unique situation because China is fomenting a lot of separatism within the states and it is internationally knows that it claims Arunachal Pradesh as its own.
I mean this is a little much - Manipur and Meghalaya are Hindu majority and China is fomenting separatism there too?
Interesting you bring this up. A counter example would be what's happening in Balochistan. It has a majority Muslim population, is India forme ting separatism there too?
I wouldn’t say fomenting but it’s happy to give the swing a push.
Twitter is put on par with newspapers, because they do gatekeeping and have accepted bias.
Twitter can not have the cake and eat it too.
There is nothing sinister just the laws kicking in.
You wouldn't want google manipulating search results and then claim to be neutral.
Twitter can not have the cake and eat it too.
There is nothing sinister just the laws kicking in.
You wouldn't want google manipulating search results and then claim to be neutral.
> You wouldn't want google manipulating search results and then claim to be neutral.
But Google does manipulate search results, so ostensibly they should also be put on par with newspapers?
examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27477797
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13274753
edit: Also your comment misleads on what the article reports. Twitter has not lost safe harbor because "they do gatekeeping and have accepted bias", but because they haven't met the staffing requirements imposed by India on large social media companies:
> The move comes as tension escalates between the Indian government and Twitter. Google, Facebook, and several other firms have partially or fully complied with the IT rules, which among other things, requires any significant social media firm (any firm with over 5 million users in India) to appoint a chief compliant officer, a resident grievance officer, and a so-called nodal contact person to address on-ground concerns.
> Twitter has not complied with any of these requirements, the court filing said. Twitter had no comment on Monday’s filing, but has said in the past that it intends to comply with the IT rules.
But Google does manipulate search results, so ostensibly they should also be put on par with newspapers?
examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27477797
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13274753
edit: Also your comment misleads on what the article reports. Twitter has not lost safe harbor because "they do gatekeeping and have accepted bias", but because they haven't met the staffing requirements imposed by India on large social media companies:
> The move comes as tension escalates between the Indian government and Twitter. Google, Facebook, and several other firms have partially or fully complied with the IT rules, which among other things, requires any significant social media firm (any firm with over 5 million users in India) to appoint a chief compliant officer, a resident grievance officer, and a so-called nodal contact person to address on-ground concerns.
> Twitter has not complied with any of these requirements, the court filing said. Twitter had no comment on Monday’s filing, but has said in the past that it intends to comply with the IT rules.
To characterize appointment of a legal compliance officer as "staffing requirements" is wrong. It makes it seem like India is forcing Twitter to hire local people.
If you are a global MNC with multi billion dollar valuation, and want to operate in a market that has a billion potential users, it is only fair that the company has a local presence.
If you are a global MNC with multi billion dollar valuation, and want to operate in a market that has a billion potential users, it is only fair that the company has a local presence.
> If you are a global MNC with multi billion dollar valuation,
What if you're none of those?
Is it still fair to require a local presence for every single site / app / network to have access to a population?
What if you're none of those?
Is it still fair to require a local presence for every single site / app / network to have access to a population?
The regulations only apply to platforms with at least 5 million registered users.
Fastmail, Disqus and a good chunk of subreddits could easily have 5 million registered users in India, and they are not billion-dollar MNCs (not sure about the valuation of the first 2)
> ...they should also be put on par with newspapers?
Correct.
Correct.
Google's time will come
how would one even sort search results without bias?
By removing user profile data as an input to the search query processing and result ranking.
That is not the topic being talked about.
Is Google allowed to filter results on any internal criteria they can come up with? It includes all avenues like political, censorship, fake news, low quality, competitor results etc.
Is Google allowed to filter results on any internal criteria they can come up with? It includes all avenues like political, censorship, fake news, low quality, competitor results etc.
So censoring a specific topic or viewpoint is fine as long as it's applied to everyone?
Did you even read what I said?
If you remove user related data as an input to the search query, the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency, rather than feeding on the biases of the users.
Such feedback loops, of showing content that is suitable to the user, will lead to information silos and gradual radicalization of the user.
If you remove user related data as an input to the search query, the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency, rather than feeding on the biases of the users.
Such feedback loops, of showing content that is suitable to the user, will lead to information silos and gradual radicalization of the user.
> the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency
With much respect for those who have to hammer them out: The algorithms are full of bias, they have to be. They are essentially just a pile of hacks. Machines cant understand articles. Even if they could they would have the same problem a human reviewer would have when asked if article A is better than B. You cant switch off your own bias. Even if we could do all that you may end up with a category dominated by the writings of [say] 50-51 year old Caucasian males which forces you to ponder corrections that may or may not be terrible ideas if or if not applied. And then you have to chose which bias to apply and we are back to biased search results.
People are the sum of their experiences, if you remove that nothing is left.
With much respect for those who have to hammer them out: The algorithms are full of bias, they have to be. They are essentially just a pile of hacks. Machines cant understand articles. Even if they could they would have the same problem a human reviewer would have when asked if article A is better than B. You cant switch off your own bias. Even if we could do all that you may end up with a category dominated by the writings of [say] 50-51 year old Caucasian males which forces you to ponder corrections that may or may not be terrible ideas if or if not applied. And then you have to chose which bias to apply and we are back to biased search results.
People are the sum of their experiences, if you remove that nothing is left.
I think most would call the original pagerank algorithm unbiased. Sure, any algorithm will have a bias towards a certain content length, or towards pages that contain the search terms at a particular density. But by doing that you don't arrive at algorithms that have an opinion on the holocaust or Tiananmen Square [1].
Of course Twitter somehow managed to implement the worst of both worlds, with a sorting algorithm that promotes controversial content (without bias regarding the actual content), but then does biased moderation on that content.
1: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57367100
Of course Twitter somehow managed to implement the worst of both worlds, with a sorting algorithm that promotes controversial content (without bias regarding the actual content), but then does biased moderation on that content.
1: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57367100
> I think most would call the original pagerank algorithm unbiased.
I disagree: the point of the original Pagerank algorithm was its bias. In particular, its use of link weights gave the algorithm a strong bias for (a proxy for) relevance.
An "unbiased" search algorithm would need to return results based on simple criteria, readily explained and presented to the searcher, such as "date first crawled" or "number of keyword appearances."
I disagree: the point of the original Pagerank algorithm was its bias. In particular, its use of link weights gave the algorithm a strong bias for (a proxy for) relevance.
An "unbiased" search algorithm would need to return results based on simple criteria, readily explained and presented to the searcher, such as "date first crawled" or "number of keyword appearances."
You are trivializing every bit of research and advancement gone into improving search engines in the last 20 years.
Please attempt a simple implementation with the methods you describe and see how it performs over even a non trivial amount of data and you will see the difference in results.
And I'm not even considering malicious results gaming the whole system.
Please attempt a simple implementation with the methods you describe and see how it performs over even a non trivial amount of data and you will see the difference in results.
And I'm not even considering malicious results gaming the whole system.
> You are trivializing every bit of research and advancement gone into improving search engines in the last 20 years.
I disagree. If anything, I think I give this research more credit, because I appreciate it as imposing a normative view on what makes search results "good."
This is more than just "how do we sort a list containing billions of keys" or "how do we grab data from a distributed database;" it's also "how do we understand relevance or quality based on machine-interpretable signals?" The latter is a judgment call.
I disagree. If anything, I think I give this research more credit, because I appreciate it as imposing a normative view on what makes search results "good."
This is more than just "how do we sort a list containing billions of keys" or "how do we grab data from a distributed database;" it's also "how do we understand relevance or quality based on machine-interpretable signals?" The latter is a judgment call.
This is a conflation between the meanings of the word bias as “a weight” and “an ideological stance”. The thing that people take issue with is generally the latter, rather than the former.
It is a conflation, but I argue that there's no bright line between the two. The ideology behind pagerank is that relevant results are better and that backlink popularity measures relevance. Another sorting objective is that "more engaging results" are better.
Each is ultimately an expression of will, since there is no objective ranking of what makes something relevant or engaging. Everyone will agree on the order of names in a phone book, but nobody will agree on the "relevance" order of search results.
You see this every day in news-adjacent search topics, where popularity, relevance, and factual correctness can all give different "proper" orderings.
Ultimately, people dislike stances that give disagreeable results, but they think benign stances to be invisible. I don't believe a coherent, legal argument can work this way.
Each is ultimately an expression of will, since there is no objective ranking of what makes something relevant or engaging. Everyone will agree on the order of names in a phone book, but nobody will agree on the "relevance" order of search results.
You see this every day in news-adjacent search topics, where popularity, relevance, and factual correctness can all give different "proper" orderings.
Ultimately, people dislike stances that give disagreeable results, but they think benign stances to be invisible. I don't believe a coherent, legal argument can work this way.
I agree with this line of argument in the sense that a choice of loss function is still a choice with implications that one cannot escape. All choices imply the expression of will and the exercise of power.
I think the essential disagreement isn’t so much about the choice of bias as it is about the exercise of power, specifically on who’s behalf do you exercise power? Do you do it for your users or for the greater good? Or for your customers? Or maybe your investors? Or maybe your ideals?
I think the essential disagreement isn’t so much about the choice of bias as it is about the exercise of power, specifically on who’s behalf do you exercise power? Do you do it for your users or for the greater good? Or for your customers? Or maybe your investors? Or maybe your ideals?
By returning the best match to a search first… second one second…
Defining best is a biased process. Is cost or quality more important? There is no objective criteria for such judgments it’s all based on personal bias.
So Google favoring low latency responses is saying latency (cost) matters when people browsing may not care.
So Google favoring low latency responses is saying latency (cost) matters when people browsing may not care.
What makes the best match? Highest number of back links?
Ideally you rate the person by his work. (Magnus is a great chess player because we wins games) If we cant rate someones work we can use opinions from those note worthy in their field.
But when those people got their respectable reputation by the same means you could have an entirely circular self-praising reputation machine that seems to work wonderfully but operates without reviewing any work.
At some stage of google the Nr 1 result for both "France" and "Paris" belonged to a blogger from NYC who had a single highly optimized page about France and one about Paris.
Similarly a high page rank page about cars shouldn't be an authority on anything else but if they link to your article about flowers it gains a lot of points. So much it would be attractive to pay them for it.
Back links were fabulous when the internet started then increasingly became a self serving loop.
But when those people got their respectable reputation by the same means you could have an entirely circular self-praising reputation machine that seems to work wonderfully but operates without reviewing any work.
At some stage of google the Nr 1 result for both "France" and "Paris" belonged to a blogger from NYC who had a single highly optimized page about France and one about Paris.
Similarly a high page rank page about cars shouldn't be an authority on anything else but if they link to your article about flowers it gains a lot of points. So much it would be attractive to pay them for it.
Back links were fabulous when the internet started then increasingly became a self serving loop.
Allow user choice. We all define "bias" differently.
Twitter is neither a news website nor a search engine.
The only sinister thing here is that, as the article mentions, the Government wants Twitter to reveal the IP addresses of specific users and Twitter is refusing to do so. Also Twitter is marking fake news spread by Government ministers and functionaries as manipulated media.
Another issue that the article doesn't mention is that the Government is pushing users towards Koo, a private alternative to Twitter that is by all accounts extremely aligned with the Government's political and religious views.
It's another step towards replicating the Great Firewall.
Edit: corrected "fake users" to "fake news"
The only sinister thing here is that, as the article mentions, the Government wants Twitter to reveal the IP addresses of specific users and Twitter is refusing to do so. Also Twitter is marking fake news spread by Government ministers and functionaries as manipulated media.
Another issue that the article doesn't mention is that the Government is pushing users towards Koo, a private alternative to Twitter that is by all accounts extremely aligned with the Government's political and religious views.
It's another step towards replicating the Great Firewall.
Edit: corrected "fake users" to "fake news"
Unfortunately, it acts as both in many instances.
User profiling and data mining, coupled with corporate interest to keep users on the site as long as possible, leads to slow but firm biasing. Search results are not objective, but subjective based on the user history and profile.
On the flip end, it is not a news site, but a massive distributor of news items. So it does act as a newspaper, because people consume large amounts of news from it.
Is it a news site, yes. Does it have mechanisms of editorial policy or checks and balances? Not that I can see.
Is it a search engine. Yes. Is it unbiased as a search engine, no.
User profiling and data mining, coupled with corporate interest to keep users on the site as long as possible, leads to slow but firm biasing. Search results are not objective, but subjective based on the user history and profile.
On the flip end, it is not a news site, but a massive distributor of news items. So it does act as a newspaper, because people consume large amounts of news from it.
Is it a news site, yes. Does it have mechanisms of editorial policy or checks and balances? Not that I can see.
Is it a search engine. Yes. Is it unbiased as a search engine, no.
All your points apply to YouTube as well, and YouTube has more than 10x the users it has in India than Twitter does.
But then why is YouTube not being targeted by the Government? One salient difference I see is that Twitter is protecting its users by being identified and punished by the Government for being anti-Government.
But then why is YouTube not being targeted by the Government? One salient difference I see is that Twitter is protecting its users by being identified and punished by the Government for being anti-Government.
Because youtube has no mechanism to label content one way or other.
It is not a massive distribution network. It is a content heavy site used for sharing videos. The actual sharing happens on other platforms.
It is not a massive distribution network. It is a content heavy site used for sharing videos. The actual sharing happens on other platforms.
So you're saying the moment YouTube begins to flag content as potentially manipulated, it could become a problem?
And do none of the points in your previous comment matter at all?
And do none of the points in your previous comment matter at all?
Of course. If you put out a video expressing your views on a political situation, and YT labels your video as "manipulative video", won't you have a problem?
> If you put out a video expressing your views on a political situation, and YT labels your video as "manipulative video", won't you have a problem?
So you’re admitting this looks like an act of retribution by the Government then?
So you’re admitting this looks like an act of retribution by the Government then?
> Twitter is neither a news website nor a search engine.
Correct. Just a social contagion which profits from sabotaging both news and search.
Correct. Just a social contagion which profits from sabotaging both news and search.
> There is nothing sinister just the laws kicking in.
I’m not sure I understand how the fact that something is enshrined in law means it’s not sinister. In fact, the fact that anti democratic or government strengthening actions are enshrined in law makes it more worrisome rather than less.
I’m not sure I understand how the fact that something is enshrined in law means it’s not sinister. In fact, the fact that anti democratic or government strengthening actions are enshrined in law makes it more worrisome rather than less.
> In a court filing on Monday, New Delhi said Twitter has lost its immunity in India after the American social network failed to comply with the new local IT rules, which were unveiled in February and went into effect in late May.
This is even more worrying when the “laws kicking in” are laws the government passed unilaterally without discussion a couple of months ago precisely to prevent dissent on social media.
Further, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. This is a government that has been absolutely pathetic when it comes to competent law making, whether you’re talking about demonetization, GST, or article 370 (which even if you may agree with the action on principle, the execution of which is an absolute sad joke, where the government has unnecessarily imprisoned the people of a state in their own homes for almost 2 years because they had absolutely no plan, and are now looking for a face saving way of backtracking from their actions).
This is even more worrying when the “laws kicking in” are laws the government passed unilaterally without discussion a couple of months ago precisely to prevent dissent on social media.
Further, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. This is a government that has been absolutely pathetic when it comes to competent law making, whether you’re talking about demonetization, GST, or article 370 (which even if you may agree with the action on principle, the execution of which is an absolute sad joke, where the government has unnecessarily imprisoned the people of a state in their own homes for almost 2 years because they had absolutely no plan, and are now looking for a face saving way of backtracking from their actions).
Why is GST imllementation "pathetic"? Could you elaborate?
For one thing payment to state governments not ruled by the BJP the party at the center) have been indefinitely delayed. States have been complaining about this, they have lost significant revenue, and are practically held under ransom.
Sure, those sort of procedural things will be sorted out.
Overall, I see GST as a good thing.
And, for many years, investors from other countries complained about complicated business environment in India and wanted to reduce red tape.
Amalgamating the myriad of tax setups across various states, into one uniform tax code, I consider, is a good thing.
Overall, I see GST as a good thing.
And, for many years, investors from other countries complained about complicated business environment in India and wanted to reduce red tape.
Amalgamating the myriad of tax setups across various states, into one uniform tax code, I consider, is a good thing.
One man's 'procedure' is another's political vindictiveness. GST is how many years old now ? That should have been ample enough time to fix the problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You challenged the notion that GST is a pathetically flawed implementation. So I gave you one. Rest is your call.
GST is a mix of a miserably poor implementation and crass political arm twisting by the party that holds sway in the center to force state governments run by opposing parties to fail.
You challenged the notion that GST is a pathetically flawed implementation. So I gave you one. Rest is your call.
GST is a mix of a miserably poor implementation and crass political arm twisting by the party that holds sway in the center to force state governments run by opposing parties to fail.
Liability for published content isn't unusual or unprecedented. Twitter et al enjoyed unprecedented liability protection for a little while; I don't see how holding them to the same standard other companies are held is worrying.
unlike newspapers Twitter is a crucial tool for everday citizens to share themselves with the world. unlike newspapers
> Twitter is put on par with newspapers, because they do gatekeeping and have accepted bias.
Twitter does some minimal moderation, and everything& everyone has bias. calling them a newspaper though? no. that's absurd. there's no pretense here that this is truth, that people are reporting. one's entering a bazaar of voices.
I don't get the impulse to be cruel & constraining & mean to these democratic emerging mediums. demanding that they fulfill certain roles we want them to have is unjust, a horrible constraint against creativity & liberty.
> Twitter is put on par with newspapers, because they do gatekeeping and have accepted bias.
Twitter does some minimal moderation, and everything& everyone has bias. calling them a newspaper though? no. that's absurd. there's no pretense here that this is truth, that people are reporting. one's entering a bazaar of voices.
I don't get the impulse to be cruel & constraining & mean to these democratic emerging mediums. demanding that they fulfill certain roles we want them to have is unjust, a horrible constraint against creativity & liberty.
> You wouldn't want google manipulating search results and then claim to be neutral.
Isn't ranking a manipulation? Not sure what you mean by this.
Isn't ranking a manipulation? Not sure what you mean by this.
I think it's clear from the context that OP was referring to manipulation based on ideological biases tainting search results, versus, mnipulation (ranking) based on relavence of search.
Ah okay, but what makes Google great for me is the fact that it contextualises and uses details about me to provide more accurate details.
Yo Mouli you have zero understanding of how google works dude.
You do not sign T&C with your newspapers do you?
It is extremely sinister that you think a govt has any business curating & culling criticism of its policies or fallacies. That's literally a civil liberty which most politicians in India are rarely aware of unless taught a lesson by the courts.
You do not sign T&C with your newspapers do you?
It is extremely sinister that you think a govt has any business curating & culling criticism of its policies or fallacies. That's literally a civil liberty which most politicians in India are rarely aware of unless taught a lesson by the courts.
[deleted]
As mentioned by others, Google does "manipulate" search results too, but it is a slightly less sensitive/emotionalized topic because Google's content (web pages) is very different from Twitter's (personal utterances). The question is: what does "neutral" even mean in this context?
The dichotomy between neutrality and manipulation is artificial, although I do see the underlying assumption that the output of any algorithm would be "neutral" whereas manual interference with its results would be "manipulation".
In reality, however, the boundary is fluid. Would an algorithm that automatically excludes certain sites be neutral, while excluding the same sites manually is considered manipulation? Is "apply keyword search, then apply blacklist" an algorithm or manual manipulation? On the other side, is an algorithm that automatically penalizes SEO-optimized (spam) sites neutral, even though a search term occurs much more frequently on that given site?
The dichotomy between neutrality and manipulation is artificial, although I do see the underlying assumption that the output of any algorithm would be "neutral" whereas manual interference with its results would be "manipulation".
In reality, however, the boundary is fluid. Would an algorithm that automatically excludes certain sites be neutral, while excluding the same sites manually is considered manipulation? Is "apply keyword search, then apply blacklist" an algorithm or manual manipulation? On the other side, is an algorithm that automatically penalizes SEO-optimized (spam) sites neutral, even though a search term occurs much more frequently on that given site?
I think you are going to see at least the large nations throw up firewalls and crack down on the international social media companies because they have an awful lot of power to shape perceptions by silencing some voices or labelling their views as "misinformation" while promoting other voices. That's enormous power.
It is absolutely naive to think that companies like twitter don't use that power to advance the political/social agendas their most powerful employees care about and it's even more naive to think that governments will see this power and not want to control it for themselves, but instead let it operate unchecked in their own borders, influencing their own elections. They will either block these companies from operating via firewalls or demand that they use their power to share the political and cultural values they want to push, systematically deplatforming any company that they view as a threat to their agenda. China was ahead of the curve.
It is absolutely naive to think that companies like twitter don't use that power to advance the political/social agendas their most powerful employees care about and it's even more naive to think that governments will see this power and not want to control it for themselves, but instead let it operate unchecked in their own borders, influencing their own elections. They will either block these companies from operating via firewalls or demand that they use their power to share the political and cultural values they want to push, systematically deplatforming any company that they view as a threat to their agenda. China was ahead of the curve.
Nothing sinister when demagogues want to shut down the free press to cement their own power?
Twitter is the complete opposite of "the free press".
Twitter's admins arbitrarily remove content that they disagree with, while allowing content they do agree with, regardless of whether said content is illegal or not.
Twitter's admins arbitrarily remove content that they disagree with, while allowing content they do agree with, regardless of whether said content is illegal or not.
Twitter provides a platform for people who would otherwise have no media representation. A lot of news regularly breaks there and a lot of discourse that the regime is unable to control, also happens there.
It is as critical as any "free press" in a country like India where the regular press kow tows to the regime and the country is ranked at 142 for press freedom.
https://rsf.org/en/india
You take it away and you take away more "free press" from the citizens of India.
You take it away and you take away more "free press" from the citizens of India.
And the whole objection is that Twitter is not bowing down to the requests of the government to censor what the government feels should be censored.
So the crux of the whole thing is not the censorship but the entity censoring the content. And obviously the government wants to wield this power.
So the crux of the whole thing is not the censorship but the entity censoring the content. And obviously the government wants to wield this power.
Twitter don't do any of the things you're claiming. I don't know why you think they do.
Does google claim to be neutral? Does twitter?
Why should the attempt to remove some harmful content from their platform create a requirement to be absolutely perfect at doing so? Was there any doubt that twitter had the technical capabilities to remove some tweets?
If you ever help a person, are you then required to help any other person in the same situation?
What's the outcome you want? Do you believe it's possible to moderate billions of tweets without a mistake? If not, what's so great about social media that is overrun with swastikas and porn after the toxicity scared away all normal people? How does that help?
Do twitter employees maybe have the free speech right of not being involved in the distribution of stuff they find horrible? What's worse, your tweets being deleted by twitter or being forced to make statements you know to be wrong and harmful (i. e. coerced speech)?
Do you realise the standard for newspapers in the US is "actual malice", meaning the editors must know something they are publishing is false and harmful, and they must act with the intent to cause some harm. Is that how you'd describe "lost liability protection"?
Why should the attempt to remove some harmful content from their platform create a requirement to be absolutely perfect at doing so? Was there any doubt that twitter had the technical capabilities to remove some tweets?
If you ever help a person, are you then required to help any other person in the same situation?
What's the outcome you want? Do you believe it's possible to moderate billions of tweets without a mistake? If not, what's so great about social media that is overrun with swastikas and porn after the toxicity scared away all normal people? How does that help?
Do twitter employees maybe have the free speech right of not being involved in the distribution of stuff they find horrible? What's worse, your tweets being deleted by twitter or being forced to make statements you know to be wrong and harmful (i. e. coerced speech)?
Do you realise the standard for newspapers in the US is "actual malice", meaning the editors must know something they are publishing is false and harmful, and they must act with the intent to cause some harm. Is that how you'd describe "lost liability protection"?
There is nothing lost here.
If Twitter decides to manipulate/cancel/promote content in an unethical way it can be taken to the court.
If the government makes unreasonable take down requests, Twitter can take it to court.
That way the pros and cons of censorship by either party is transparent and available for public scrutiny.
If Twitter decides to manipulate/cancel/promote content in an unethical way it can be taken to the court.
If the government makes unreasonable take down requests, Twitter can take it to court.
That way the pros and cons of censorship by either party is transparent and available for public scrutiny.
Ignoring the title
This podcast is a nice observation of how different India is from a developed western country.
https://youtu.be/bGaztD29pe0
A must watch especially if you are looking for an alternative view
This podcast is a nice observation of how different India is from a developed western country.
https://youtu.be/bGaztD29pe0
A must watch especially if you are looking for an alternative view
It boggles the mind that companies such as twitter would even own offices in corrupt countries such as india. Its a question of time until the government will want to grab some of the sweet sweet money from them, and such measures are only the beginning: bully them a bit until they "sponsor" the right politicians.
It is true that the corruption at lower levels that is seen in India is orders of magnitude higher than in developed societies.
But at the higher echelons, where politics and business and the arms industry meet, India is small potatoes when it comes to corruption. Americans don't have "bribes" ... they have sanitized words like "lobbyists", "power-tips", "pork-barrels" and so on. Rich societies fall over themselves selling arms to all factions in countries riven by war and poverty and starvation, while making pious pronouncements about freedom and right to exist.
The giver of the bribe is just as corrupt as the receiver.
But at the higher echelons, where politics and business and the arms industry meet, India is small potatoes when it comes to corruption. Americans don't have "bribes" ... they have sanitized words like "lobbyists", "power-tips", "pork-barrels" and so on. Rich societies fall over themselves selling arms to all factions in countries riven by war and poverty and starvation, while making pious pronouncements about freedom and right to exist.
The giver of the bribe is just as corrupt as the receiver.
It's like in China where you have limited ownership of the company. But still, any % of whatever the big country is willing to give you, you take it because it raises the valuation of your company, so and so.
I do not necessarily have a problem with social media websites setting their own moderation policies, but for a long time it has been clear that twitter's actions in India are far from politically neutral.
I also find it funny that Americans who have raised so much noise over last few years about Russians "hacking" their elections consider another country's government trying to limit or regulate an American company's attempts to influence domestic politics as an authoritarian attack on free speech.
I also find it funny that Americans who have raised so much noise over last few years about Russians "hacking" their elections consider another country's government trying to limit or regulate an American company's attempts to influence domestic politics as an authoritarian attack on free speech.
It is important to point out that the Americans concerned about Russian hacking are often not the same Americans concerned with protecting free speech.
But I am sure there will be a big intersection between the Americans concerned about Russian hacking (liberals) and the people who will see this as an authorian government attacking free speech (also liberals).
> Twitter said at the time that it was “concerned by recent events regarding our employees in India and the potential threat to freedom of expression for the people we serve”
I can smell the irony. These tech companies don't care about the liberties of the citizens of the America. Now they want to lecture the government of India and Nigeria (last month) about "freedom of expression"? What a pathetic joke. They took away the speech of mine and many others I know. I hope they suffer.
I can smell the irony. These tech companies don't care about the liberties of the citizens of the America. Now they want to lecture the government of India and Nigeria (last month) about "freedom of expression"? What a pathetic joke. They took away the speech of mine and many others I know. I hope they suffer.
Today, saying that cow dung does not cure covid, can land you in jail because it goes against the government's narrative. I can't even imagine of the things to come.
https://theprint.in/india/journalist-activist-jailed-under-n...