Twitter Blocks Numerous High-Profile Accounts in India Following Government's 'Legal demand' (techcrunch.com) 25
Twitter blocked access to dozens of accounts in India, including some that belonged to high-profile individuals, on Monday to comply with a "legal demand," prompting confusion and anger among users who are seeking an explanation for this action. From a report: Among those whose accounts have been withheld in India include Caravan, a news outlet that conducts investigative journalism, political commentator Sanjukta Basu, activist Hansraj Meena, actor Sushant Singh, and Shashi Shekhar Vempati, chief executive of state-run brodcasting agency Prasar Bharti. Accounts of at least two politicians with Aam Aadmi Party -- Preeti Sharma Menon and Jarnail Singh -- that governs the National Capital Territory of Delhi have also been withheld. At least two popular accounts linked with ongoing protests by farmers -- Kisan Ekta Morcha and Tractor2Twitr -- in India have also been restricted.
Citing a government source, AFP journalist Bhuvan Bagga reported earlier today that India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology directed Twitter to block around 250 tweets and accounts that were using a hashtag to make what it alleged were false, intimidatory and provocative tweets over the weekend. He adds: "Incitement to genocide is a grave threat to public order and therefore the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MEITY) ordered for blocking of these Twitter accounts and Tweets under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act." A person familiar with the matter corroborated this claim to TechCrunch.
Citing a government source, AFP journalist Bhuvan Bagga reported earlier today that India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology directed Twitter to block around 250 tweets and accounts that were using a hashtag to make what it alleged were false, intimidatory and provocative tweets over the weekend. He adds: "Incitement to genocide is a grave threat to public order and therefore the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MEITY) ordered for blocking of these Twitter accounts and Tweets under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act." A person familiar with the matter corroborated this claim to TechCrunch.
Re: It's not censorship! (Score:2)
Don't you think that makes a difference?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OP is a troll (Score:2)
This is not a private company (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing wrong with a private company censoring communications from its users.
This wasn't a private company acting due to its terms of service. This was a request by a government following a corrupt legal proceeding. There is a huge frigging world of difference between Twitter silencing people on the request of a government (censorship) and Twitter silencing people who are outright twats and breach their terms of service (not censorship).
My system, my prerogative.
I'm interested in what you think would happen to you when your corrupt government asks you to do something and you use that excuse. If you're lucky you get booted out of the country. More likely in India you don't get booted out of anywhere, rather you get booted into somewhere. I wonder what the terms of service in your private cell is like.
Re: (Score:3)
One is censorship, the other is simply the democratically decided limits to freedom of speech that every country has, which may include libel, copyright infringement or calls to genocide.
There may be corruption at play, I'm not that familiar with India... but it's still known as the largest democracy in the world.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nope censorship has nothing to do with whether a government is democratic or not.
I'm not that familiar with India...
And you chose to comment anyway. Ever hear the saying: "It's better to keep quite and let others assume you're a fool than the speak and remove all doubt?" Applies very well here. Especially since you assume this has anything to do with any of the above, or this laughable idea that "every country has" them.
But hey, even if every country did have the limits you list it would make your post no less hilariously ignorant since the
Re: (Score:2)
India is the worlds largest democracy, however at the moment it is not very democratic. It has a very heavy handed party in power at the moment.
Re: (Score:1)
This wasn't a private company acting due to its terms of service. This was a request by a government following a corrupt legal proceeding. There is a huge frigging world of difference between Twitter silencing people on the request of a government (censorship) and Twitter silencing people who are outright twats and breach their terms of service (not censorship).
Ignoring the work "corrupt" for a moment, the point you are making is that if is initiated by the government, it is censorship. Otherwise, no problem.
But, what is the difference?
If it is initiated by a "legal proceeding", then it is presumably decided by elected representatives of the people, following the countries laws and regulations.
If it is initiated internally, then it is decided my an unelected committee, not following any laws or regulations.
The difference is that you have much more trust in private
Re: (Score:2)
But, what is the difference?
Everything is the difference.
A government telling you what to do, or what you can say, or who to work with is a mixture of censorship and restriction on freedom.
Me telling you to get the fuck out of my private house, or booting you off my private forum is a fundamental expression of my freedom.
If it is initiated by a "legal proceeding", then it is presumably decided by elected representatives of the people, following the countries laws and regulations.
Being initiated by a legal proceeding doesn't make it any less censorship if that legal preceding is a tool of the government. Just like America passing laws that make it illegal to be a twat isn't any less an impinge
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Not sure what else Twitter could have done. They have staff in India, if they didn't act those staff would have been in legal difficulties, possibly arrested.
I suppose they could pull out of India and put everyone there out of a job, but that doesn't seem like a very good solution either.
The government is to blame here, not Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The rule of law in India is often side stepped and ignored, especially with the current leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter doesn't need to employ anyone in India, which frees them from having to make such a hard choice. They're a big company and should have known this was always
Re: (Score:2)
Since a private company imposed this
Slashdot n00b: No need to RTFA. I know better.
Slashdot expert: No need to RTFS. I know better.
Slashdot AC God: What even is a title? Why would I read that!
Re: (Score:3)
You also have a complex sets of responsibilities if your operation is international.
Especially as laws in every country can very greatly. American Freedom of Speech does have its limits [wikipedia.org] on what would be considered unprotected free speech, Other countries may may allow some of our restricted speech as perfectly acceptable, yet outlaw other types, for example, some countries will allow for obscenity, while restricting hate speech.
India has a much different culture than America, while it is more western tha
The problem (Score:2)
This is the problem with centralized control of infrastructure. (Yes, I'm including social media in my definition of 'infrastructure'). The government puts on the pressure, and 'X' service gets shut down.
What we really need is to have widespread mesh networks, and servers that are more distributed and less centralized. (Note that de-concentrating the resources has the beneficial, but problematic, side effect of de-concentrating some wealth as well). There are lots of technical, social, and logistical hurdle
The upshot is you get an audience (Score:2)
Audience is power, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
you can't easily replicate as you don't have a team of psychologists and expert programmers on hand.
Willing to sell their souls and cause great societal harm so they can make some money. i.e., anyone who works at Twitter, Facebook, etc.
CaaS, social media's new business model (Score:1)
India is a good country to try out Censorship as a Service. Asians are not nearly as ovine as white people and wouldn't accept having a corporate consortium assume veto power over basic open speech rights, as in the US, but offering the same business model to governments may be their way to go in this market space.
Re: (Score:2)