Twitter Has Lost Liability Protection in India, Government Says (techcrunch.com) 185
Twitter no longer enjoys the liability protection against user-generated content in India, the government said in a court filing this week as tension escalates between the two over the South Asian nation's new IT rules. From a report: 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. Experts have said in recent weeks that the Indian court -- and not the Indian government -- holds the power to decide whether Twitter gets to keep its safe harbor protections in the world's second largest internet market.
Internet services enjoy what is broadly referred to as "safe harbor" protection that say that tech platforms won't be held liable for the things their users post or share online. If you insult someone on Twitter, for example, the company may be asked to take down your post (if the person you have insulted has approached the court and a takedown order has been issued) but it likely won't be held legally responsible for what you said or did. Without the protection, Twitter -- which according to mobile insight firm App Annie, has over 100 million users in India -- is on paper responsible for everything those users say on its platform.
Internet services enjoy what is broadly referred to as "safe harbor" protection that say that tech platforms won't be held liable for the things their users post or share online. If you insult someone on Twitter, for example, the company may be asked to take down your post (if the person you have insulted has approached the court and a takedown order has been issued) but it likely won't be held legally responsible for what you said or did. Without the protection, Twitter -- which according to mobile insight firm App Annie, has over 100 million users in India -- is on paper responsible for everything those users say on its platform.
Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
opinions and ideas that they didn't like, they wanted to decide what consenting adults were allowed to write and read on their platform.
By doing so they PROVED to be perfectly capable to censor whatever content their users posted, hence they became responsible for the content they let on their platform making them complicit to any law being violated by their users.
So Twitter, you wanted the right to censor, now you have the burden to censor and if you fall to do so there will be legal consequences.
Congratulations and good luck.
Every action has an opposite and equal reaction, i guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to stop a few trolls after they have been reported is not the same as being able to nanny all 100000000 Indian users to make sure they don't say something the law deems libellous.
Expecting a platform to be able to read billions of comments at the level of a libel lawyer is absurd. This is pretty much what the Indian gov't is asking for - the impossible.
Re:Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:5, Interesting)
Being able to stop a few trolls after they have been reported is not the same as being able to nanny all 100000000 Indian users to make sure they don't say something the law deems libellous.
Expecting a platform to be able to read billions of comments at the level of a libel lawyer is absurd. This is pretty much what the Indian gov't is asking for - the impossible.
No, that is the consequence of Twitter failing to live up to the law of the land. The court has basically told Twitter that they have lost their safe harbor protections because they have failed to live up to the law. If they had lived up to the law they would still have their safe harbor protections.
Not that I agree with the law. But India is a democracy and if they decide that is the way they want to regulate media companies, then that is their prerogative.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the summary you are actually wrong. The Indian courts haven't said anything about Twitter losing its right to safe harbour. It is the Indian government that has said in court that Twitter is no longer eligible for safe harbour status. The court has yet to rule on that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the summary you are actually wrong. The Indian courts haven't said anything about Twitter losing its right to safe harbour. It is the Indian government that has said in court that Twitter is no longer eligible for safe harbour status. The court has yet to rule on that statement.
Yes, you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are right.
It has to happen once in a while. Now I just have to wait another 5+ years until it happens again.
8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I agree with the law. But India is a democracy
Ugh, stop saying that. India's democracy is deeply flawed [indiatimes.com], and you're cheering for it.
No, I am not cheering for it and I hope India will become more free in the future. But that is not up to me to decide but the Indians. Flawed democracies like India, France and USA (look it up) do of course have a right to decide their own laws and set a path for the future of their nations whether wise or not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Modi wants the ability to suppress speech that he doesn't like - he's repeatedly shown this throughout the pandemic.
That may well be the case. And if so, then the Indians will have to fight (politically, not literally) for more freedom if they want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to stop a few trolls after they have been reported is not the same as being able to nanny all 100000000 Indian users to make sure they don't say something the law deems libellous.
Expecting a platform to be able to read billions of comments at the level of a libel lawyer is absurd. This is pretty much what the Indian gov't is asking for - the impossible.
Thy know that. They just want twitter gone.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fundamental difference between government and private entities. What you say would apply to a private entity - they wouldn't make an absurd request like this because of the astronomical amount of money Twitter would charge them for the service of removing all instances of libel. But it doesn't apply to the government becaus
Re: (Score:2)
There's costs that can be swallowed and then there's silly astronomical costs, this falls into the later category. It's not twitter won't read every post, it's twitter can't read every post without quickly going bankrupt. Stupid politicians are asking for impossible feats.
Also to consider - how on earth is twitter even supposed to know whether or not a tweet is libel without not just reading every tweet but also researching all parties concerned to see whether or not what is said in the tweet is true. And s
Re: (Score:2)
It's a free speech issue, what is the benefit of free speech? Being able to hold the govt to account by speaking freely, informing your fellow citizens of political issues.
That's a definite social benefit. Many gov'ts hate free speech, they want to control information flow, it enables them to lie easily. Look at Putin cracking down on the press, calling them extremeists because they like to point out all of the corruption around him.
Re:Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:4, Funny)
Expecting a platform to be able to read billions of comments
What about hundred crores of comments?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every action has an opposite and equal reaction, i guess.
Of course, so what should be the reaction to when "consenting adults" can't control themselves and say whatever and whenever what comes to mind? That's right, society steps up to the plate and does what the "consenting adults" are unable to do. That's moderation, something that's been going on as long as there has been societies. Which is why one should take care in what one says, and if it's something that needs to be said taking the fallout that goes with it instead of playing the victim card.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a book [themindfulword.org] I recommend you read so we can dispense with this whole myth that words have no consequences.
Note: we wouldn't have libel laws if words had no "actual harm" to them.
Re: (Score:2)
By doing so they PROVED to be perfectly capable to censor whatever content their users posted, hence they became responsible for the content
That's not how the world works. Just because I can kick you out of my house doesn't make me responsible or liable if you go on a bender and murder someone in it, or stand at the window and shout racist shit at someone.
Re:Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
Countries which support Free Speech don't have laws like these. India's government is anti-free speech.
A company that was pro free speech would not be censoring people in the first place and demonstrating their ability to censor to government that wanted this censorship power for themselves. As much as I dislike the India government for this I dislike Twitter for their abuse of American laws built to protect free speech.
Twitter made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. I'm hoping that future social media platforms take this as a lesson. Someone should build a platform like an e-mail list server, the servers only manage the list of followers. Once a message is sent there's no means of censorship. If someone doesn't like what was said then don't follow them or make a better argument. Having the ability to censor means some government is going to try to come in as the censor. To keep the government from taking this power from a company means the company removes this ability for themselves. Even that might not be enough, having servers only handle the user lists, as someone could come along to remove people from the lists. Someone with a million followers may find they have none.
The internet was built to route around damage, and censorship is damage. The fix will be a system which removes as much central control as possible. A system that no government can strong arm the creators into handing the keys over to the government. Likely involving end to end encryption so that there's no content filtering. I doubt any for-profit company would create such a thing since by removing control there's not likely to be a way to monetize the information or sell advertising.
Re: Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:2)
A company that was pro free speech would not be censoring people in the first place and demonstrating their ability to censor to government that wanted this censorship power for themselves.
Free speech includes the right to speak and to not speak and to aid or to not aid others' speech. So whatever Twitter's commitment to free speech is, removing posts or users is perfectly in line with it.
Someone should build a platform
Great, go for it. You could be the next Zuckerberg or something.
Having the ability to censor means some government is going to try to come in as the censor.
Oh, sweet summer child, if you lack the ability and the government really wants it, the government will also order you redesign things so that you do possess it.
A system that no government can strong arm the creators into handing the keys over to the government.
Governments strongarm creators all the time into putting flaws into encryption algor
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech includes the right to speak and to not speak and to aid or to not aid others' speech. So whatever Twitter's commitment to free speech is, removing posts or users is perfectly in line with it.
Bullshit. Twitter is not alone in trying to have it both ways, defending their ability to censor while claiming everyone has the right to speak. Removing posts is not defending free speech. After Twitter got kicked out of Nigeria for blocking the nation's president they had demanded they be allowed to operate because everyone has the right to speak. Yes, that's right, everyone has the right to speak, and that includes the president of Nigeria. Twitter is not defending free speech. They are not acting
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is not alone in trying to have it both ways, defending their ability to censor while claiming everyone has the right to speak. Removing posts is not defending free speech.
Sounds legit to me. When Twitter removes tweets, it is engaging in free speech. Specifically, the right to not participate in speech. The users (or 'twits') involved aren't silenced; they just have to go elsewhere. It's like if I own a house with a big, prominent yard, and I allow people to put up political signs in the yard, I'm not censoring anyone if I refuse to accept a particular sign, or reject a sign that is already there; my yard, my rules. No one has a right to use it that they can enforce agai
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you can't make money by promoting false but hot-button quips that way. Wait you were talking about speech freedom... that has nothing to do with this. This is about being able to promote just enough junk information to make money off the page views without getting clobbered by civil society when it fully turns to the cesspool that generates. Your version of "free" speech appears to include the ability to indiscriminately defraud and abuse with no consequences (i.e. the things that are against twitte
Re: (Score:3)
And you, in turn, recognize that Twitter is exercising that great responsibility, when it moderates (that is, when it decides what content stays and what goes)? So, what is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to be a grammar nazi but I have no idea what you are trying to say with grammar and spelling like that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> So you admit it's their platform, and not yours?
Of course i do, why wouldn't i?
Someone is committing a crime on their platform, they proved to be able to censor whatever content they deem inappropriate for their platform, this logically means that they have no problem hosting illegal content. Hence they are complicit and criminals too.
> That's exactly what someone would say if they didn't understand any of the issues involved.
Really? I don't think so, neither does the Indian court apparently, nor do
Re:Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, before Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc began censoring content they didn't like i would have agreed with you. But that was yesterday, that was BEFORE these giants proved to have powerful AIs capable of scanning hundreds of thousands of posts per day and flagging for human review (or even automatically censor) the few hundreds that were potentially objectionable, that was BEFORE they decided to become EDITORS instead than simply CARRIERS.
I also stopped arguing for the carrier protections for the above companies once they implemented clandestine corporate censorship in their systems. There is also no doubt that their control of the content on their social networks will expand greatly over the coming years. The tools are already in the pipeline and some of them are probably being deployed as you read this. And much of the momentum that removal of the carrier protections has gained in democratic countries is because of this although another component is a general devaluation of the value of free speech (especially the speech that you are against;-).
I am also quite sure that in a few years these megacorps have been reigned in and they will be happily helping governments around the world censor speech that is considered anti-social, destabilizing or whatever term will be used to denote speech which challenges the existing societal order or just existing dogma in the society. Just like they do in China now and like the social media companies have started doing during the pandemic and the US elections.
The amount of censoring will of course depend on the specific circumstances in each country. In some the corporate censoring will be dominant (such as will probably be the case in USA) while in others government censoring will be dominant. There will probably also be countries where corporate censoring will be limited by law and no government censoring will be implemented. But in any case the pendulum of freedom which was set in motion by the internet 30 years ago is now well on its way back.
Re: (Score:2)
I also stopped arguing for the carrier protections for the above companies
Shame. They'll be the first to sell you out when someone comes asking.
I am also quite sure that in a few years these megacorps have been reigned in and they will be happily helping governments around the world censor speech
Yep, if only they enjoyed carrier protections. But somehow you seem to be in favour of reigning them in while at the same time actually understanding the consequences. Do you hate free speech that much?
Re: (Score:2)
I am also quite sure that in a few years these megacorps have been reigned in and they will be happily helping governments around the world censor speech
Yep, if only they enjoyed carrier protections. But somehow you seem to be in favour of reigning them in while at the same time actually understanding the consequences. Do you hate free speech that much?
No, I am for free speech with minimal restrictions from either governments or corporations. And no, I am not in favor of reigning them in in the sense of making them liable for content on their platforms. I am however in favor of breaking up their near monopoly status by forcing interoperability with other social networks by decentralizing our data since that will make it impossible for corporations to censor. The above is just a prediction of what I believe will happen in many places around the World.
Re: (Score:2)
I also stopped arguing for the carrier protections for the above companies
Shame. They'll be the first to sell you out when someone comes asking.
Good, I don't intend to break any laws in my local jurisdiction, so go ahead. I am more worried about corporate censorship than being reported for breaking any laws (which I should be if I did it).
That said I am actively choosing freedom (which includes privacy) oriented alternatives to the services that the above companies provide. So my exposure is much more limited than that of Joe Average.
Re: Twitter wanted the right to censor (Score:2)
Hence they are complicit and criminals too.
Maybe. Depends on the nuances of Indian law.
that was BEFORE they decided to become EDITORS instead than simply CARRIERS.
But by the same token, whether India has such a thing as common carriers, and how that works, depends on the nuances of their laws. It's entirely possible that telephone companies, if aware of unlawful communications, is required to end calls or cancel accounts, for example.
Also, you don't understand how common carriage works in the US. There is no reason to ever expect that it would apply to a website or mere service using the Internet (as opposed to an ISP), and
Re: (Score:3)
Non Indians don't have free speech or any other rights as such in India. Twitter refused to hire an Indian to stay in India. India is not a colony anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Non Indians don't have free speech or any other rights as such in India.
Right, because India's government is anti-free speech. The same is true in the UK, where for example seditious speech is still illegal for foreigners but not for citizens. But here in the USA, the first amendment to the constitution (protecting free speech and indeed expression) is considered to apply to all people, citizens or not. In fact, most of the members of the Bill of Rights are considered to apply to all people, with some notable exceptions (like the second amendment.)
Twitter refused to hire an Indian to stay in India.
If they were paying Indians to
Re: (Score:3)
"Countries which support Free Speech don't have laws like these."
A basic definition of censor: "examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it."
Its not like the USA ever tried to censor anything. Except television, movies, and print media. And no, its not just keeping people from yelling fire in a crowded theater. You may say that's odd, but its generally illegal to "speak" the following items...
Cigarette adds on television
Certain types of pornography
Pornography on over the a
Re: (Score:2)
No countries really put free speech up on a platform like the US does though. I doubt India's government cares one iota about free speech and probably never really has.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries which support Free Speech don't have laws like these. India's government is anti-free speech.
Again, you know nothing. The Indian 1st Amendment to the constitution REMOVED absolute free speech
So what you're saying is that I'm right, and India's government is anti-free speech? Thanks for backing me up, but I'm a bit confused as to why you'd say I know nothing when you're agreeing with me.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're just a clueless, arrogant kid from the reddit generation who doesn't know jack shit.
I was using the internets before the general public even discovered the WWW, jack. You are the one who doesn't know fuck about shit. Now run along and let the adults have a conversation without your diaper dribbling on the kitchen floor.
This is why (Score:2)
According to the article, there are at least two things they India is demanding:
"appoint a chief compliant officer, a resident grievance officer, and a so-called nodal contact person to address on-ground concerns"
"mandate operators of encrypted messaging apps to introduce a way for the law enforcement to be able to âoetraceâ the originator of objectionable messages"
I don't think the second applies to Twitter, but, predictably, Signal hasn't responded to them on either matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, I'll do it so long as I can work from home and am not legally liable. Pay me in doge coins or what-ever is more environmentally nice and untraceable.
Re: This is why (Score:2)
A new 'Indian government censored Twitter' version (Score:2)
To be made available purely in India. The name 'Twitter' is licenced to it by Twitter, but it is essentially a 'censor compliant version'. This allows real Twitter to continue unconstrained - and beyond the immediate reach of the Indian government, unless it blocks the domain.
Freedom of speech (Score:3)
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves --Abraham Lincoln (b. 1809)
Govt laws/Court judgements should not break the spirit in Constitution;
Otherwise the Country will die;
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How much do cowardly, anonymous trolls get paid in India, anyway?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not, not everyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll.
That doesn't have any bearing on whether that person is a troll.
The Indian court, for instance, doesn't seem to agree with you, are they trolls too?
No, they're autocratic tools of a fascist president who wants to stifle dissent against his ongoing march towards dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If ethnic populism is all it takes to be a fascist, I've got some bad news for you about the BLM movement.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IndiaÃ(TM)s president is not elected.
Point to where I said otherwise, kiddo
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
Indiaâ(TM)s president is not elected. Clearly you know nothing about Indiaâ(TM)s political system.
The Indian president is elected [wikipedia.org]. It's not a direct election, but then neither is e.g. the election of the US - if it had been a direct election, Trump would not have won in 2016.
That aside, in India most of the executive power is held by the prime minister - which, as you write, has some very bad tendencies. Religion and politics should not mix.
Re: Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Different countries, different rules.
Different rules, different excuses by those who oppose free speech and approve of autocratic rule.
The fact that in one country they have different rules that in yours it doesn't mean they are "fascist" or that they are a "dictatorship".
And nobody suggested that they were, but you're using a typical tactic by suggesting that I'm just being culturally insensitive when accusations of fascism come from within India regularly [theconversation.com], and there is ample evidence that Modi is deliberately promoting fascism [theguardian.com].
Believe it or not, "moral" is not something absolute, it does change with time and location.
So what do you find moral about Modi's rule?
For instance, just a few decades ago, in USA, it was perfectly moral to burn witches alive with their family watching them scream and suffer... a thing that today would be considered immoral pretty much everywhere in the world.
Yep, that was terrible, and many terrible things still happen within the USA, but you're engaging in pointless whataboutism which adds nothing to the discussion and in fact distracts from the issues at hand today.
Re: Good (Score:4, Informative)
For instance, just a few decades ago, in USA, it was perfectly moral to burn witches alive with their family watching them scream and suffer... a thing that today would be considered immoral pretty much everywhere in the world.
Yep, that was terrible, and many terrible things still happen within the USA, but you're engaging in pointless whataboutism which adds nothing to the discussion and in fact distracts from the issues at hand today.
The ridiculous guy you're having a brawl with needs to show us how in the 1980's ( a few decades ago) the USA burned witches. The Salem Witch trials took place in 1692, rather a long time before the USA existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you've forgotten the Satanic Panic and kids playing D&D! Clearly a gateway experience from burning witches on a quest with a fireball to setting your local Wiccans wholly ablaze with a Molotov cocktail. Think of the children!!!
Re: (Score:2)
> So what do you find moral about Modi's rule?
You are confusing morals with ethics. Ethics are what a society says is right or wrong. Morals are what you individually consider to be right or wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> For instance, just a few decades ago, in USA, it was perfectly moral to burn witches alive
Only a spiritual retard thinks it is OK to kill people.
Saw this joke on reddit that summarizes the cognitive dissonance perfectly:
Q. What do you call someone who murders 160 people?
A. Depends on who is paying them!
* Your government, a war hero.
* Enemy government, a terrorist.
* No one, a serial killer.
no actually we can say they aren't (Score:2, Informative)
We can actually say they aren't : there are laws made excliplitly to make some people vote count less (gerrymandering) and there are laws made to try to dissuade certain type of voter to vote (voter ID laws, and IIRC certain GOP politician pretty much stated it was with the goal of lowering the vote count going to democrat) and finally vote location are reduced in certain area of certain socio economic level, to
Re: (Score:3)
I find it weird how people have fooled themselves into thinking that showing ID at the polls is somehow voter suppression yet most nations with democratic elections do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most nations require ID more often in your life. In the USA you can get away without it a surprising amount of the time if you choose to live a lifestyle that permits that... and if your skin color permits that.
That is because you have no ID (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm totally for making the process of dealing with the government easier and less stressful. Not sure who would be against that beyond bureaucrats who feel their pointless jobs would be at risk.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah, I see you're expressing your political standpoint with Republican Party/fascist talking points, & with similar tact & rationality, e.g. "so take that narrative and shove it." & while displaying frankly awful racist views. So your argument is that America isn't morally depraved because you can point to other countries that are worse?
BTW, the a difference in the overall number of black vs. white shootings by the police is because there are more white people to shoot at. The difference is in th
Re: (Score:2)
Then go live in Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt if they are so great.
Re: (Score:2)
Then go live in Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt if they are so great.
I didn't say they were great. I held them up as examples of how NOT to be.
How far did you get with reading at school? Your reading comprehension seems more than a bit off.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, mass shootings make up less then 1% of all gun deaths in the US. Most people actually shoot themselves with the gun instead of anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:4, Interesting)
No, just the Modi government, which gets its knickers in a twist over criticism. So they are trolling media via their laws.
Re: (Score:3)
No, just the Modi government, which gets its knickers in a twist over criticism. So they are trolling media via their laws.
Yeah, this is the part that rubs. Because I'm at least a little familiar with the Modi problem, I know why they're doing what they're doing. But then a lot of people who either aren't or who are his supporters like to claim that I'm speaking from a position of ignorance. Well, I believe what I believe because of what I do know, not because of what I don't. But even though accusations of ignorance are a cheap tactic, they're also an effective one because most people won't look into whether or not they're tru
Re: (Score:2)
Any chance we can call this something other than "trolling"? Unlike the long-lost Internet art-form, what the Indian government is doing (and indeed most of what is now called "trolling") is entirely sincere.
Re: Good (Score:2)
You are speaking from ignorance and then projecting authority which is unethical to say the least, borderline criminal at worst. What is happening is nothing new.
https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com]
The reality is that Modi is doing 1 thing different and that is rooting out foreign influence and trying to increase manufacturing, which rubs the Chinese and their American friends to end.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, this is the first sign of an autocratic government - zero tolerance towards any dissent. In a democracy, dissent is allowed and even encouraged, political rivals are held up as equals, and so forth. Trying to quiet the people should be a warning sign that things are very rotten at the core.
Re: (Score:2)
No, India is the government I was referring to that currently has autocratic leanings and is trying to limit the free press and shut down criticism.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
This should be the case. Platforms do not deserve this protection, it's too powerful. It has increased the hatred filled discourse of modern society.
This is why we cannot have nice things.
I don't like what you said. I think we should take down all of Slashdot or at the very least assume power over Slashdot so we can target you specifically.
That's the world you want isn't it? Honestly I'm in two minds about this. On the one side it's horrible, on the other side it allows us to get rid of stupid posts like yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most grown-ups understand that the world is more complicated than some fake freedom dichotomy. Saying that, what you describe is the world I want. One where you can make crap analogies all day long without let or hinderance.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about fake freedom. The freedom to not be judged based on what someone else says is very real. The question is, should a government have the arbitrary decision to decide when and for what someone is liable for.
That's the world I describe. That's what is under discussion. If that's the world you want, then you are a particularly dangerous idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about fake freedom.
No, its about fake dichotomies. Freedom is not a binary choice and absolute freedom does not exist. So the only choice is where the line is drawn and who you get to draw it - private industry or elected governments. If you trust private industry more than your government then I'd suggest the problem might lie there.
My issue is with your slippery slope fallacy dressed up as a binary choice that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely my point. I shouldn't be allowed to anonymously stir up discontent.
If you really believed that, you would observe that the captain has turned on the sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up sign. But here you are, spewing meaningless blather about how free speech should be less free to stop people like you.
I don't agree with the Indian government, and happen think Modi is a classic autocrat populist. But I don't live there, or have any beef with their system. They elected him, and reelected him
Eh, maybe. India is generally considered to be a flawed democracy [indiatimes.com], and confidence both international and domestic in fair elections there is very low — twice as low as, say, the USA.
Leaders are an extension of their people
lol no. Leaders are a reflection of their society. Whether they win a fair election o
Re: (Score:2)
> so they can hold me to account for my actions
When did words become actions? Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Now what does each group consider their constituency (openly and privately)? That's where we're forced to use our own judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
When did words become actions?
If you don't think speaking (or typing) is an action then there is really no talking to you, because you're not speaking the same language the rest of us are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's unclear that they want him to run it his way - like all elections there are a lot of ways to get elected without having a majority approve of you or your ideas. Gerrymandering, manipulating or suppressing the press, superdelegates, voting for a party slate instead of a person, etc. But never mind how Modi got into office, once there he has been suppressing criticism and dissent.
Now yes, in a way it's none of our damn business. Up to and until it causes instability in the larger world and it be
Re: (Score:2)
Now yes, in a way it's none of our damn business.
In what way?
Up to and until it causes instability in the larger world and it becomes our problem.
In a world with high-speed transport and light-speed communications, everything is everyone's business. If you've heard of something, it's affecting you somehow; even if you haven't heard of it, it still might be.
Anything you don't want to be anyone else's business should be kept to yourself. And I don't mean within your nation, I mean within your head.
Without it, no social service can exist. (Score:3)
So, not just YouTube, but anyone who allows other people to post videos. Is it that you don't want people who aren't major media companies to be able to create and distribute video? Do you want to close down all the small voices? Because that is what happens if you deny service prov
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven forbid there might be a single rule providers have to follow in order to receive common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is the problem of perspective. Sure, many people hate Twitter and are glad to see it get a black eye, but who then turn around and are appalled that a mom and pop newspaper is raided and shut down or that democracy is being weakened. Too many people have the idea that free speech is just for the sorts of people that they approve of.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not, but human nature certainly is, and India recently demonstrated it with how they've dealt with the pandemic.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Shame about India's tech economy though, lots of sites will be pulling out or shutting down now. Pre-moderating every post doesn't scale.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Jan 6 happened because someone turned off their own police force to cause a ruckus.
Re: (Score:3)
How many insurrections were there in the years before Trump when Twitter and Facebook (et al) existed?
I think your statement actually helps prove the OP's assertion that it is the posters that cause the problems not the social media sites themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a lot. They weren't as well organized of course, hard to scale up mimeographed newsletters. But those insurrectionists came from a history and didn't just suddenly appear. The older militia movement for example, a mix of bad actors along with some well meaning people as well. The white supremacist groups. The anti-government types who think you can print your own money, that they are not subject to federal jurisdiction, other sovereign individual bullshit. These people did not all come to these
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say they were well organized. There were only 12 people involved and they pretty much just stormed and did whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, I upset a right-winger in their bubble world.
Re: (Score:2)
Radical far left? Lol that's a minority so small it's pointless to even mention it. Radical far left is more of a right-wing boogie man than a real thing.
Re:They Should Lose It Here Too (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter and Tumbler especially should not qualify for safe harbor under ANY set of laws.
Because you're the arbiter of free speech? Look how free that is!
These laws are meant to allow platforms to censor content without worry of reprisal if they happen to miss something.
These laws are meant to allow platforms to censor content without worry of reprisal because it's their platform. You want them to be forced to carry speech you find unobjectionable. That's not free speech.
What these platforms do instead is selectively promote certain content to drive controversy.
That's not "instead", that's in addition. They do both things. One does not pertain to the other.
People go to these sites to invoke feelings, so to drive traffic up these places put the most contentious content front and center.
A practice which is wholly unaddressed by these laws and this action.
At that point they are no longer passive hosts, they are driving the conversation and are just as responsible as the people who post it.
The law appears to agree with you, with predictable chilling effects on freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
>> At that point they are no longer passive hosts, they are driving the conversation and are just as responsible as the people who post it.
> The law appears to agree with you, with predictable chilling effects on freedom of speech.
A chilling effect on Twitter and its picking of which speech is acceptable by others, a massive gain in freedom of speech for Twitter users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll say it again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.vox.com/recode/202... [vox.com]
Re:I'll say it again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll say it again. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some people would LOVE it if twitter up and left. Then an Indian firm could rise up and serve the second largest Internet market in the world. Really, fuck twitter. They never supported free speech in the first place so I can't find any sympathy for them now.