[HN Gopher] Koo, India's free-speech Twitter alternative
___________________________________________________________________
Koo, India's free-speech Twitter alternative
Author : donohoe
Score : 70 points
Date : 2021-02-19 18:58 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (restofworld.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (restofworld.org)
| approxim8ion wrote:
| Censorship and moderation are only part of the issue. The broader
| issue is with the nature of these platforms being conducive to
| vitriol, misinformation, and a kind of image-obsession and
| addiction to trivial things that takes away from more important
| pursuits. I see no reason why this would be better than Twitter
| in that regard.
|
| Also, sovereignty is a noble pursuit but I can't help but feel
| that "self reliance" in this regard meaning the data for indian
| users remains on indian data centers misses the point and
| ultimately doesn't go far enough. A person needs to own his own
| data, and these platforms need to be not localized or controlled
| by singular states, but rather go above and beyond and be truly
| open and global.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| The actions of Twitter regarding the last election have almost
| certainly guaranteed the rise of foreign social media sites. If
| they have no qualms restricting the speech of the president of
| America, clearly they'll have no issue manipulating other
| governments. American social media sites really have no one to
| blame but themselves.
|
| I say this from a realpolitik perspective. This was clearly the
| obvious outcome.
| phailhaus wrote:
| > If they have no qualms restricting the speech of the
| president of America, clearly they'll have no issue
| manipulating other governments.
|
| This never did make sense to me. Trump's speech was not
| curtailed. At any point in time he could issue a press
| conference and speak freely to the US, and it would be heavily
| attended by the press. Are we supposed to feel sorry for Trump
| that he decided to make twitter.com the _only_ way he
| communicated with the country?
|
| There was literally nothing stopping him from speaking to the
| country after his account was banned; he _chose_ to stop
| talking.
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| Hate speech inciting violence is what was banned not any
| speech.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| The classic problem is, how do you define hate speech and
| what counts as inciting violence? Who are the people deciding
| such things?
|
| If you're a foreign government you do not want some committee
| of Bay Area Twitter employees deciding that for your national
| affairs.
| cobraetor wrote:
| These are great questions, and here's my attempt at
| answering or elaborating on them.
|
| > how do you define hate speech
|
| Ira Glasser explains it precisely: "When people say they
| want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban
| speech that they hate ... But if you allowed something
| called 'hate speech' to be banned, then the only important
| question would be 'who decides? ... If the government is
| going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it's
| not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate,
| it's going to be the speech they hate, ... It all ends up
| coming down to who decides and most often, it ain't you'
| https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-
| expla...
|
| > and what counts as inciting violence?
|
| This is better explained by the legal scholar Jonathan
| Turley,
|
| "The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case
| law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in
| 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the
| First Amendment unless there is a threat of "imminent
| lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
| action."
|
| Trump never called for violence and instead told his
| followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to "cheer" on
| those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at
| capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump's speech
| could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather
| than violence."
|
| https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-
| trum...
| adictator wrote:
| > If the government is going to be the one to decide what
| hate speech to ban
|
| Yes. The government, typically democratically elected,
| should be the ONLY authority on making such rules. Not a
| commercial / tech company which, for all intents and
| purposes, was setup with the sole intention of making
| money. So in the US, even if you take the best case
| scenario, we have certain sections of the government
| shooting over the shoulders of companies like Twitter &
| Facebook. That way they get the results they want without
| the flak they would have typically received. In return,
| those sections of govt can confer favors, monetary or
| otherwise to the tech companies.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I had to do a double take there. Ira Glasser, not Ira
| Glass.
| strictnein wrote:
| Splitting hairs a little bit. The only recourse to an
| election that was actually stolen is violence.
|
| By stating again and again that the election was stolen
| what, exactly, was Trump wanting his followers to do
| about it? What, exactly, did he want for the people
| marching on the Capitol to do to stop the election from
| being stolen? Stand outside? Come on...
| cccc4alll wrote:
| Your speech is hate speech. You should be banned and censored
| and deplatformed.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Can you prove incitement? Because Twitter certainly did not
| list out any convincing evidence in their blog post about the
| ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspe
| nsio...), instead sheepishly offering up Trump's absence at
| the inauguration as evidence. It's hard to blame Trump for
| the Jan 6th riots when 10000 people showed up at his rally
| that day and only a couple hundred at most went past the
| capitol barricades. But simply breaching the barriers is not
| really a big deal - leftist activists have raided the capitol
| several times in the last decade as part of their own
| political activism. So let's focus on those who didn't just
| trespass but committed other crimes like theft, vandalism,
| and assault. I bet that number is less than 50.
|
| So to summarize, Trump delivers a speech, he explicitly calls
| for a peaceful protest (visible in transcripts), and a very
| very small number of people break the law. That doesn't sound
| like incitement - it sounds to me like a few individuals made
| bad decisions and hold personal responsibility for their own
| actions and should be held accountable. But no court has
| found Trump guilty of incitement, and I bet none ever will -
| the evidence is simply not there.
|
| As for Twitter - their power and influence is larger than
| most governments, and they should not be making unilateral
| decisions judging incitement and instituting bans of public
| figures. They operate the new public town square - and they
| need to be regulated like a public entity. or just
| nationalized like a utility and required to uphold the first
| amendment. And other leaders like Macron
| (https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-
| twitter...) and Merkel
| (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-
| at-...) are absolutely correct to be alarmed at the reckless
| actions and immense power of American tech giants, who are
| ideologically very biased.
| mrzimmerman wrote:
| He also explicitly told everyone to "fight like hell". I
| mean, if he's using double speak I can't help that but one
| part of what he said triggered a percentage of the people
| to try to find and kill US Congress people, steal computer
| equipment and other office supplies, and kill police
| officers.
|
| You're asking everyone who watched the capitol riots to
| ignore what they saw with their own eyes.
| cobraetor wrote:
| > "fight like hell".
|
| Here's the full context: "fight like hell, and if you
| don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country
| anymore." ... "We will not be intimidated into accepting
| the hoaxes and the lies that we've been forced to believe
| over the past several weeks."
|
| Per legal scholars, like Jonathan Turley,[1], those words
| could be equally consistent with calling for a protest,
| not violence, as many groups routinely do at state and
| federal capitals.
|
| [1] https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/reckless-
| rhetoric-is-a...
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Whew, that has to be the most snarky, insecure corporate
| press release I've ever seen. Bizarre.
| foolinaround wrote:
| this is a subjective opinion, at best.
|
| If it is not clear enough to stand prosecution, then it is
| not 'hate speech' really. There needs to be clear-cut
| definitions and enforced uniformly.
|
| Twitter has lost that trust, and now raises alarmms across
| the world.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| It doesn't matter though.
|
| Other governments are going to see the facts on the ground
| (Twitter can and will restrict the speech of a head of state
| to his people), and rush to sanction local alternatives which
| will allow them to reach their people and ban American
| versions.
| mc32 wrote:
| Hate speech should be defined by laws rather than ToSes.
|
| With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking against
| having pets could be hate speech against pet owners. I mean
| it could mean whatever the mods want it to mean. You can
| circumscribe it to only affect people you want affected for
| whatever reason.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| > With a ToS you can make it up as you like. Speaking
| against having pets could be hate speech against pet
| owners. I mean it could mean whatever the mods want it to
| mean. You can circumscribe it to only affect people you
| want affected for whatever reason.
|
| To be fair, Congress could, on a whim, change the
| definitions of hate speech whenever they felt like it. If
| you're arguing about selective enforcement with TOS, the
| police already selectively enforce laws. Hate speech would
| just be another one they could use against people they
| don't like, while ignoring those they do. There's no good
| solution.
| mc32 wrote:
| Yes agreed. There is no good solution. True hate speech
| is one of the reasons we can't have good things. But
| "hate speech" is a cudgel used to control people and get
| them used to being controlled.
|
| That said, things like speed limits for example. We all
| on principle agree to this type of enforcement. One via
| the licensing and second via legislation. We could make
| changes if we thought it important enough.
|
| Look at prop 47. People erroneously thought we were
| prosecuting too many minor thefts. So the law was
| changed. Now many people are looking to reverse it given
| the unintended consequences. Point is, at least we can
| affect legislation directly. Not so with ToSes unless
| Congress takes up the issue -which so far they are loath
| to do.
| cobraetor wrote:
| > Hate speech inciting violence
|
| Interesting, but what I don't understand is ... if Trump
| clearly incited violence, why was he not convicted? Would you
| say that the American justice system is not fair?
|
| *edit: responding to comment from zimmerman below,
|
| I watched the full trial, but have not seen any clear
| arguments made in favor of proving incitement. The legal
| scholar Jonathan Turley explains it better:
|
| "The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case
| law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in
| 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the
| First Amendment unless there is a threat of "imminent lawless
| action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
|
| Trump never called for violence and instead told his
| followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to "cheer" on those
| challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals
| are common and, while reckless, Trump's speech could as
| easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than
| violence."
|
| https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/19/want-to-prosecute-
| trum...
|
| *edit: Here's an informative video on House managers
| presenting fake evidence (as foolinaround explains below)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3I3wXrBoo
| mrzimmerman wrote:
| Because the Republican party decided that because Trump was
| no longer president at the time of his 2nd impeachment
| trial he couldn't TECHNICALLY be convicted:
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-
| mccon...
|
| Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely
| well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention
| at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress
| seriously believed he wasn't culpable.
|
| So to answer your question simply, he wasn't convicted
| because it wasn't politically expedient to the rest of his
| political party.
| foolinaround wrote:
| you have to check either your biases or where you get
| your stories from.
|
| If the impeachment managers did this stuff (fake the
| evidence such as videos, tweets, etc) in a real court,
| they would face serious consequences.
|
| The Chief Justice recognized it as a sham and did not
| participate, and one does not need to like Trump to know
| what this second round was.
|
| The first one was atleast done by the book...
| cobraetor wrote:
| Not really disagreeing with you, but Hacker News
| guidelines prohibits making negative comments about a
| person.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Everyone is biased, so it would be far more productive to
| just refute the central point, which in the case of
| mrzimmerman's comments on this thread (as you may
| realize) is rather straightforward to do.
|
| http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| They've clearly shown themselves to have huge biases. The
| policy on "hacked" materials is a good example that was
| selectively applied only against one side.
|
| I'm really not a Trump fan and find most of the
| "conservative" media hilariously amateurish, but if you don't
| see the obvious bias Silicon Valley has, I'm afraid you're
| not paying close enough attention.
|
| From the perspective of a foreign government, why let them
| control information in your country? As I said, it makes no
| sense for them to do so.
| markdown wrote:
| The bias is against electoral manipulation and fake news.
| Hence the "hacked" materials removal.
|
| > The policy on "hacked" materials is a good example that
| was selectively applied only against one side.
|
| On the side that pushes fake news, yes. That's a good bias
| to have.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| There were plenty of situations in which the information
| was clearly gained illegally (or totally made up), but
| since it made Trump look bad, it was allowed. His tax
| returns, for example.
|
| As I said, if you think one side is somehow unbiased and
| just, you aren't paying attention.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Here are 11 examples of when this very thing happened,
| one of which is of course Trump's tax returns:
| https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/11-hacks-leaks-and-
| hoax...
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| My response was directly to your quote,
|
| "restricting the speech of the president of America,
| clearly they'll have no issue manipulating other
| governments."
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| As the other commenter said, Trump's comments were
| confused at best, and Twitter didn't actually cite them
| in their ban. They had a convoluted explanation of how
| his tweets were actually coded messages.
|
| Even if they did cite his speech as a reason, looking at
| it as a single event is sort of missing the point. They
| engaged in similar behavior for years beforehand.
| golemiprague wrote:
| A bit useless considering that's exactly is his point,
| that there is no agreement about that, you think it was
| inciting hate speech and he does not, so why Twitter
| should be in control of who is right? Obviously other
| powerful entities will want to be the deciders.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| These platforms are too big. A company should be able to ban
| its users or disable accounts, but that should be an
| inconvenience and not censorship. Trump lied and promoted
| insurrection but we can imagine futures where the good guys are
| the ones being shut off.
|
| I don't know the solution. Trump could post his 280 characters
| on whitehouse.gov to his heart's content. But in comparison to
| Twitter with millions of followers it's like talking to an
| empty room. You'd expect that those millions of followers would
| still be interested in his 280 characters if they're not on
| Twitter, but there's no frictionless broadcasting. Unlike RSS,
| every voice is plugged into a monolithic service that can rank
| and silence stories as it sees fit.
| maedla wrote:
| How did we get to the point where the government not being able
| to punish you for what you say is conflated with posting to a
| privately owned website? How? It's embarrassing
| dextralt wrote:
| So if all those people who hold problematic opinions would go
| and make their own privately owned website, everyone would be
| happy?
| john_max_1 wrote:
| Twitter and liberal democracies can't co-exist. Either Twitter
| will ban/demote politics on its platform or politics will ban
| Twitter country by country.
|
| Even Macron is angry about Twitter -
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-macron-calls-for-regula...
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Twitter used to be the free-speech wing of the free-speech party,
| so they were generally tolerated in most countries (China a
| notable exception).
|
| They have obviously changed course, gradually and subtly, over
| the years. But these changes went largely unnoticed because only
| very fringe people were affected by this. When Trump was banned,
| people realized how vulnerable their dependence on Twitter was,
| and sought out new platforms.
| hvaoc wrote:
| Good move, Twitter will be better off without them.
| as300 wrote:
| I get the impression reading articles like this that the farm
| bills would _certainly_ negatively impact farmer. See this quote
| from the article:
|
| >The country's capital city has seen over four months of protest
| after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government enacted
| agricultural laws that would adversely affect farmers across
| India.
|
| However, from speaking to people and watching interviews where
| people discuss *the actual bill itself*, the only answer I ever
| hear is something along the lines of, "this bill *could
| potentially* lead to things that are bad."
|
| I'm asking from a place of good-faith here, but what separates
| claims that the farm bill is bad from blatant fear-mongering?
| strategyanalyst wrote:
| There is fear that this will reduce the degree of government
| subsidies that farmers recieve.
|
| Current yields of Indian crops aren't stagnant, but there are
| fears that water levels are too low to keep them rising fast
| enough for the coming rise in demand.So too much land on water
| consuming paddy crops may be bad in long run. Bill tries to
| push towards diversification by introducing agri markets that
| may raise investment in nontraditional crops.
|
| http://amp.scroll.in/article/821052/punjab-is-set-for-record...
|
| Fear is also that this will hit farmers in state of Punjab and
| Northern UP the most. They rely on a system of guaranteed crop
| buying by government. Moving to market model may lead to
| changes that proponents say will raise their income but they
| believe it will lead to corporations eating away the profits.
| naruvimama wrote:
| My impression is just fear mongering for political gain.
|
| India had a power transfer from the British to the elite who
| used to work for the British as intermediaries.
|
| India has mostly been and is still dominated by these elites in
| most sectors outside of the free markets.
|
| They are worried about Modi taking away all these privileges
| that they have enjoyed for 70 years.
|
| So all these elements are ganged up against the BJP and Modi.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| >They are worried about Modi taking away all these privileges
| that they have enjoyed for 70 years.
|
| >So all these elements are ganged up against the BJP and
| Modi.
|
| I have to say, this is a pretty misguided impression. Seems
| like you haven't actually read up on the farm bill.
|
| Your comment history seems to expose you as a BJP/Modi
| supporter who doesn't think much before proposing policies.
| Here's an excerpted comment of yours from a while back:
|
| >Put some armed sentry that shoots on sight,, no more
| refugees.
|
| >It is part of Turkey's strategy fill Europe with Muslims and
| them wanting to reinstate the Caliphate.
|
| I mean, I think that speaks for itself.
| nonamechicken wrote:
| I share the same fear farmers have in regards to corporations
| taking over things. I have seen documentaries that talks about
| how chicken farmers are at the mercy of 3-5 corporate
| monopolies in USA. So I don't know if the Indian farmers fear
| about corporations are entirely wrong.
|
| Having said that, I think the new laws are good for India.
| These are the arguments I have heard in favor of the new laws:
|
| One of the main arguments against the farm bills is that it
| will remove the minimum support price (MSP) guarantee which the
| government gives the farmers, and will put them at the mercy of
| corporations. India introduced the current MSP related system
| back in 1960 to inspire farmers to grow some crops when India
| had a huge shortage of food grains, and was importing grains
| directly from US (referred to as 'ship to mouth'). That is not
| the case now. India actually has a surplus of those grains.
|
| Also, MSP covers only 23 crops produced in India. For example,
| onion prices dropped to insanely low prices last 2 years. There
| is no MSP for them.
|
| Also, the MSP cover is available only in certain states, which
| puts other states at a disadvantage. To make things
| complicated, there is a law that guarantees certain grains at
| low price for the poor. For example, the law guarantees rice at
| 3 rupees to the poor. Govt has to buy the rice from the farmers
| because of the MSP system (say at Rs 20), and then in turn sell
| them to the poor at Rs.3 in a state which doesn't have MSP,
| thus putting the farmers in the non MSP states at a huge
| disadvantage.
|
| Another reason is that farmers are producing huge amounts of
| MSP crops such as wheat because the price is guaranteed, while
| ignoring other crops that India has to heavily import (such as
| pulses and oil seeds). The govt has to purchase the MSP grains
| no matter what, and the godowns have way more in stock than
| India could distribute (almost double or more last year).
|
| Also, some of these MSP crops like rice require lot of water
| for cultivation, and considering the shortage of water in most
| places in India, govt wants to reduce the farming of such
| crops.
|
| I got most of these info from this video (I believe this
| channel is neither right wing or left wing):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9hSADKW3Cc
| manishsharan wrote:
| >>Also, some of these MSP crops like rice require lot of
| water for cultivation, and considering the shortage of water
| in most places in India, govt wants to reduce the farming of
| such crops.
|
| This is very a important point. Most farmers who are
| protesting are from the province of Punjab . However, their
| choice of crops and farming methods is leading to depletion
| of undergroup water and not sustainable in the long run.
|
| https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/paddy-
| tu...
|
| Also, historically speaking -- Punjab farmers never grew rice
| as paddy cultivation uses a lot of water. Thanks to
| government subsidies, Punjab is now a prolific producer of
| rice and this has had a major impact on water table.
| markdown wrote:
| You keep using MSP, but haven't said what it is.
| nonamechicken wrote:
| Sorry, I just copy pasted from another post of mine where
| we were talking about MSP.
|
| MSP means minimum support price. Its a guarantee from the
| government to the farmers that the government will buy the
| crop at a certain minimum price no matter the market
| situation is. For example, MSP for 1 kg rice may be rupees
| 20. If the farmers can get a higher price in the market,
| they can sell it at that price. But if the market price
| fell for some reason (over production for example),
| government will buy it from the farmers for rupees 20. This
| guarantees that the farmers will not be at a lose.
|
| MSP made sense when India had issues with rice and wheat
| (the video I linked talks about its origins in India at
| 5:00). Since MSP is guaranteed for some crops (such as rice
| and wheat) and not for others (such as pulses which India
| has to import), farmers would naturally make more of the
| MSP grains.
|
| Also, do note that the farm bills doesn't remove MSP as far
| as I understand. One scenario farmers argue is this:
| Farmers get MSP when they sell in government run markets.
| Now, with the new system, farmers will get more money since
| they would be selling directly to the companies without any
| middlemen. If I understood correctly, the new system
| removes middle men (whom I have heard makes huge profit
| while paying very less to the farmers). Once the farmers
| starts selling directly since direct sale gets them more
| money, no one would go to the government markets any more.
| So, after a couple of years, government will close those
| markets since they are not in use. Now, corporations will
| start offering lower prices to farmers, and farmers will
| have no place to go. This is one argument I have heard of
| what could go wrong. But seeing all these protests, I have
| been thinking why can't farmers dictate the price if they
| have this much bargaining power.
| markdown wrote:
| Thank you. Great explanation.
|
| > why can't farmers dictate the price if they have this
| much bargaining power.
|
| They have political bargaining power, but don't have much
| bargaining power in the market. This is because most
| crops are perishable goods. Even with crops like rice
| (which can be stored by the farmers for an extended
| period), farmers can't afford to hold on to the goods for
| long... they need cash to survive.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Minimum Support Price
| rdedev wrote:
| Minimum Support Price. The government buys certain crops at
| a minimum rate from the farmers to protect them from sudden
| market fluctuations
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_support_price_(Indi
| a...
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| "what separates claims that the farm bill is bad from blatant
| fear-mongering"
|
| My personal thought is lack of education, lack of raising
| awareness.
|
| Farming and selling produce directly at a physical market is
| straight forward.
|
| Commodity trading, futures, buyer-seller agents are all complex
| for poor subsistence farmers with a few acres of land each.
| foolinaround wrote:
| There are some farmers (the richer ones from some states) that
| will lose out in this farm bill.
|
| The jury is out on whether it provides any benefits at all to
| the average farmer who hardly has any land to start with.
|
| also, the govt is seen as too cosy with business interests, and
| there is fears of a transfer of wealth to these corporates.
| webmobdev wrote:
| > but what separates claims that the farm bill is bad from
| blatant fear-mongering?
|
| The same thing that separates claims that the farm bill is good
| based on the blatant propaganda of those in power.
| as300 wrote:
| I can't tell if you're being serious. If by your answer you
| mean nothing, are you saying that the farm bill panic is
| simultaneously both fear-mongering and push back against
| blatant propaganda by those in power?
|
| If by your answer you mean something else, why didn't you
| just say so instead of being so cryptic?
| krtkush wrote:
| From what I have read and heard[1] is that these bills are
| mostly good and are what the country needs. Unfortunately, the
| current government's track record with implementing ideas is
| awful. Also, the country is divided and polarized to the hilt
| and therefore, no one is ready to listen to each other nor
| trusts one another.
|
| The Current government failed to introduce these laws in an
| amicable manner and their ego won't let the farmers have any
| other way.
|
| [1] https://seenunseen.in/episodes/2021/2/7/episode-211-the-
| trag...
| motohagiography wrote:
| The reaction of Koo may be more accurately described as being to
| globalization and the cultural homogenization it entails than
| against the largely western right/left divide.
|
| The diversity of opinions on mainstream platforms is starting to
| resemble being in an airport where you have the choice of
| mcdonald's, wendy's, burger king, or taco bell if you are looking
| for something exotic. Sure, it appeals to everyone, except it
| appeals to their vices and when they don't have better choices.
| As soon as people can afford better, they switch. From an
| economics perspective, the mainstream US platforms are an
| "inferior good." The last 10 years of social media has been a
| real time spectacle of intellectual mean reversion.
|
| I'm cheering Koo on anyway. They're going after the regional
| desires of hundreds of millions of people who have a country in
| common. The bar to creating services like this is really low, and
| there are so many other huge countries to serve.
| john_max_1 wrote:
| It is actually worse that you said. It is like the US wants to
| have _only_ mcdonald 's, wendy's, burger king, or taco bell at
| the Indian airports.
| [deleted]
| msravi wrote:
| I was one of those users who made the move from Twitter to Koo. I
| think what really pushed me and several several others to do so,
| was the arrogance that Twitter showed to an elected government,
| for a legitimate takedown of accounts that were fanning flames of
| hatred and violence through blatantly fake reports on the ground.
|
| This was pretty much like the Capitol hill violence - hooligans
| stormed the Red Fort on Republic Day and hoisted a separatist
| flag.
|
| One "farmer" died when he rammed a barricade with his tractor and
| it turned turtle. Despite there being a clear video of this,
| several Twitter accounts began maliciously attributing this to
| police firing, and trending hashtags saying there was a "farmer's
| genocide."
|
| The government rightly asked Twitter to take these down.
| Twitter's response was wholly inappropriate for the situation and
| the contrast to their actions during the Capitol hill incident
| was really stark.
| vivekpandian wrote:
| It has become very common these days, to label people who don't
| agree with them as fascists, nationalists etc. This kind of
| mentality trivializes real issues. Facebook, Twitter and other
| big tech think of themselves as erstwhile English East India
| company or Dutch East India company. Just because someone is from
| the west, doesn't give them any right to give any kind of
| certificate to government of other countries.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| The companies you mentioned also thought they were doing "the
| right thing" in the name of civilization. Clearly they were
| mistaken. Times truly never change.
| paxys wrote:
| Free speech and right wing are fundamentally incompatible in
| India. No matter how much the founder of Koo dreams of being
| "apolitical", soon enough there will be a barrage of "hurting
| religious sentiments" charges on him or any of his users signed
| off by random small town judges anywhere in the country. Look at
| the number of activists, journalists, comedians or any other
| citizens behind bars today for simply _liking_ the wrong tweet or
| facebook post.
| webmobdev wrote:
| If the founder is really a businessman, and not "one of them",
| it shouldn't matter because he's already secured around $4
| million in funding, thanks to this mass migration!
| gdsdfe wrote:
| Why change from the original title?!
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| The site's creation is understandable when considering how
| destabilizing social media has been. Just look at how the US has
| changed from 2008 to now. Here's a particularly relevant quote
| from the article:
|
| "Every social media [platform] has to be responsible, to a
| certain extent, of what they bring into a country because it
| defines a lot of things in the country, like youth culture or how
| citizens of a country react to a situation.
|
| "When a company is registered elsewhere and doesn't take into
| consideration the nuances of the local culture, I think it can be
| dangerous. Indian entrepreneurs building for Indian cultural
| nuances is better than somebody who doesn't understand the
| cultural nuances trying to build for India."
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Social media is not destabilizing. The increasing
| income/wealth/opportunity gap is destabilizing. Social media is
| just how it can be seen.
| OptionX wrote:
| A rather lackluster solution to the power of social media in
| current society. A nationalist-approved twitter clone seems
| most likely an euphemism for a politically-controlled echo box
| to preserve the status quo and foster ultra-nationalism. Reeks
| of an Indian Parler, and that didn't turn out great.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| I am curious. You complain of the potential for it becoming a
| "a politically-controlled echo box," but how is that
| different from the current big social media sites? They are
| blatantly controlled too.
| sgpl wrote:
| I grew up in India - nationalism is definitely a growing concern
| for the country IMO, more so than can be expressed online by
| articles such as this. And nationalism definitely has a huge
| overlap with hinduism in the country.
|
| Creating siloed media platforms that lets such ideas fester and
| grow is probably the worst thing that can happen.
|
| The thing is that even gently challenging these ideas (with some
| folks I know back home) leads to an aggressive defence strategy
| that is pretty much focused on some variation of nonsense
| arguments rooted in 'talking points' being pushed by nationalists
| that aren't rooted in any fact.
|
| Some variations I've experienced: it's foreigners trying to stir
| the pot, farmer protests have nothing to do with farmers but it's
| to do with destroy India's unity by fringe groups, etc. On
| Greta/other celebrities shining light on farmer protests: they're
| being paid money by third parties to meddle in local politics,
| etc.
|
| Other scary things I've seen are pretty much labelling anyone
| that disagrees with you as the other (this includes the
| opposition party Indian National Congress, etc.) and instead of
| listening to valid points being brought up, there's this Meme-
| fication of the person/party that's worse than trolling and
| borders on attacking every trivial detail from the person's life.
| caseyross wrote:
| I found this tidbit from the interview interesting:
|
| > I'm an independent person; I'm apolitical. We want to unify
| India.
|
| I've started noticing more in the world how sometimes, people
| promote their stances as "apolitical", "independent", or
| somehow outside of politics. This has the powerful effect of
| implying that those stances are natural and un-opposable.
| webmobdev wrote:
| This is a mass migration of political thoughts, and its
| supporters, to another platform (especially of those in power
| currently) - you can bet they thoroughly vetted the platform
| owners before opting for it. To be blunt, the platform owner
| is one of "them".
| wahern wrote:
| It's a timeless, perhaps even instinctive, rhetorical
| formula.
|
| If you want to advocate some policy or cause you first
| establish your independence to imply non-biased
| consideration.
|
| If you want to criticize some policy or group you first
| establish that you were previously an advocate of that policy
| or group, or currently still _are_ part of that group,
| implying that the criticism is so undeniable that even
| someone predisposed to bias and self-interest can 't reject
| it.
|
| We all do this. For example, "I actually like Rust and use it
| daily, BUT...."
| naruvimama wrote:
| Nationalism can mean different things to different people and
| countries. It can be bad in former colonial powers and good in
| former colonies.
|
| And the BJP today under Modi is considered a "Hindu
| nationalist" after 70 years of Independence.
|
| This is in sharp contrast to Pakistan which started killing
| millions of Hindus & Sikhs, and has more or less completely
| wiped out their non-muslim population. This ethnic cleansing
| started even before they were created as a country.
|
| So perhaps the "Hindus" should have a say in the only country
| meant for them.
|
| Pardon me for saying this but Christian and Islamic values have
| been enforced on much of the world, which includes India much
| of whose laws and education are Christian/Leftist leaning.
|
| As for those who are not aware, "Hindu" (of India) is the catch
| all phrase for anyone who did not fit into the other major
| faiths. And the "Hindus" themselves mostly consider anyone who
| are not openly inimical to their pluralistic practices as being
| in the fold.
| cowmoo728 wrote:
| How many of them use the NaMo (narendra modi) app? That's been
| very successful at creating a pro-Modi fake news machine.
|
| https://qz.com/india/1534754/modis-namo-app-spreads-pro-bjp-...
|
| iirc BJP (Modi's political party) was also a big client of
| Cambridge Analytica and various whatsapp based troll farms. I
| remember rumors from around the time of the last American
| election that some of Modi's tech advisors were helping the
| Trump campaign on how to use whatsapp groups, but I'm not sure
| if that's true.
|
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-presidential...
|
| It seems that connecting a billion more people to the internet
| in the past few years has accelerated the rise of ultra-
| nationalism via memes and fake news.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Why does 'nationalism' concern you. Is 'nationalism' always or
| almost always negative?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Nationalism is always negative to me because I define it as
| blind allegiance to a tribe who you don't hold accountable.
| sremani wrote:
| First world luxury - but the 2020s will teach a lesson
| about primacy of Nation-State. Watch the Germans.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Yeah I think we've already seen enough German nationalism
| last century.
| firstSpeaker wrote:
| What do you mean? You just throw a sentence without
| adding any substance here.
| indy wrote:
| unfortunately "blind allegiance to a tribe who you don't
| hold accountable" applies to almost everyone who regularly
| engages with social media.
| ziftface wrote:
| Maybe so, but it becomes more serious when it's about
| policy. Not liking someone or leaving a snarky comment on
| twitter isn't the same as stripping people of citizenship
| or having state-sanctioned violence against a certain
| ethnic group.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I'm increasingly worried about the decentralized mob-like
| "consequences" for problematic speech. Sure, it's not the
| government taking away tour citizenship or committing
| violence against you, but it's easy for your life to be
| destroyed by a single tweet or Facebook post. If tensions
| are especially high, you could have your home or business
| vandalized or burned down.
|
| Social media can whip people into a frenzy and create a
| tyranny worse than what the government can do because
| there is virtually no accountability. The court of public
| opinion doesn't let you appeal your sentence.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Is your personal definition the common one?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't know. Merriam Webster has this:
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
|
| > loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense
| of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c)
| exalting one nation above all others and placing primary
| emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as
| opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
| john_max_1 wrote:
| It is a privilege to say so, My wife's Christian family
| suffered a lot during Islamist-led civil war.
| sgpl wrote:
| In this instance it concerns me because this form of
| 'nationalism' is a net negative for India and its future
| generations. It's masquerading as national pride but it's an
| attack on the secularity of the country, an attack on
| minorities (religious, lgbtq+ folks, etc), an attack on free
| speech and an attack on political freedom/opposition.
|
| India is not a monolith but a diverse country with a rich
| history and trying to force an entire country to 'fit in' to
| this narrative of 'nationalism' does more harm than good for
| society moving forward IMO.
|
| As for your second question, I don't know enough to give a
| definitive answer on whether nationalism is always or almost
| always negative but in this case I feel it is.
| naruvimama wrote:
| India's diversity is guaranteed only because of Hindus.
|
| Communists, Christians & Islam has cultural cleansing as
| their core instrument. As simple scan of the world will let
| you clearly classify nations as catholic, protestant, sunni
| or shia.
|
| Projecting problems of western ideologies into false
| equivalences in Eastern thought does no one any good.
|
| Laws against LGBTQ was imposed by the British and it was
| removed by the current BJP government after 70 years of
| independence because the BJP does not give in to
| fundamentalist Christian/Islamic voices.
| lordleft wrote:
| 'nationalism' is typically distinguished from patriotism; the
| latter is a love of country -- the former is the conviction
| that one's country is better than other countries, on the
| basis of a rank tribalism.
| 99_00 wrote:
| From wikipedia:
|
| Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the
| interests of a particular nation (as in a group of
| people),[1] especially with the aim of gaining and
| maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over
| its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should
| govern itself, free from outside interference (self-
| determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis
| for a polity[2] and that the nation is the only rightful
| source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It
| further aims to build and maintain a single national
| identity, based on shared social characteristics of
| culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics
| (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a
| shared singular history,[4][5] and to promote national
| unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and
| foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural
| revivals have been associated with nationalist
| movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national
| achievements and is closely linked to
| patriotism.[7][8][page needed] Nationalism is often
| combined with other ideologies such as conservatism
| (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing
| nationalism).[2]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
| flipcoder wrote:
| Would most people who call themselves nationalists actually
| accept this definition?
| sremani wrote:
| In the mother of multicultural societies - Nationalism is
| the fine thread that holds the thing together. India
| without Indian-Nationalism is warring states inviting new
| colonial powers for piece of action. This has been
| predicament of India since Alexander the Great. Strong
| borders externally and shallow border internally with
| rivers flowing in different directions created disparate
| cultures and population centers.
|
| India without Indian Nationalism is Syria on Steroids.. You
| do not want to go there.
| sgift wrote:
| Funny, there is a state in Europe which had exactly the
| same position: We are all individual states, we fight
| with each other, we are weak, we should be together under
| strong nationalism, so we aren't victims of others
| anymore and so on. That country was Germany, which
| unified in 1871. Two world wars later and we've decided
| that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing. But you
| do you. Have fun.
| sremani wrote:
| Is Europe a country? Europe and India are different in
| many ways. Because Indian Nationalism dates back to 323
| BC and with Mauryan Empire.
| orwin wrote:
| Nationalism as in nation-state dates back to 323 BC? I
| would be surprised. I think historian debate if
| nationalism was born in the 17th or the 18th century, so
| maybe they are all wrong, but considering how many new,
| interesting debate are indroduced by Chinese historians
| (== academics), i doubt the debate wouldn't already have
| fired if this was a question.
|
| At the time, ruling over different culture and languages
| was a sign of power. Chandragupta's empire included
| Bengali and people from Deccan, and i think it extended
| beyond the hindus (Sorry if it the the english term, i'm
| not fluent enough to read history books in english). I
| would be VERY surprised if any of those considered
| themselves as Indian before anything else.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > That country was Germany
| [deleted]
| dextralt wrote:
| >Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe
| Nationalism isn't such a great thing
|
| The states that brought Germany down in both world wars
| were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies
| brought it back when they needed it the most - and it
| worked.
|
| Also, since the country in question here is India -
| without nationalism, they would still be a colony.
| lordleft wrote:
| It is one thing to argue for an Indian National identity
| -- I think that's immensely useful and agree that it acts
| as a thread that can unify diverse polities and cultures.
|
| The problem is that the BJP is advancing a conception of
| Indian National Identity that flattens distinctions and
| is predicated on a caricature of Indian minorities.
| Hindutva sees Muslims, Christians and others as second-
| class citizens -- it is a nationalism that comes at the
| expense of diversity, and sometimes at the expense of the
| safety of Indian minority communities, free expression &
| speech, and democratic norms.
|
| Creating an identity from a subcontinent filled with
| dozens (if not thousands) of languages and ethnic groups
| is an immense challenge, but the project of Hindutva is
| an unbelievably blunt attempt to resolve this tension.
|
| I should add that I am an Indian American, and a St.
| Thomas Christian from Kerala. My community is ancient,
| thoroughly Indian, and yet is an affront to Indian
| Nationalism as conceived by the Hindu Nationalist right.
| sremani wrote:
| I get what you are saying - but Hindutva in spite of a
| ham fisted approach is also effective at least in
| political sense that it is Simple and simplistic. India
| is layered with fragments like caste, region, etc. In
| some cases Hindutva replaces the more devious kinds of
| fragmentation. In spite of the rhetoric India under BJP
| has less communal strife than 80s or 90s. I hate to say
| it but I will say it anyway, you need to break eggs to
| make an omlet and I take no satisfaction in it, but there
| is going to be strife in some communities ending up being
| political losers.
|
| I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of the
| socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state where
| BJP has no footprint.
| polar wrote:
| > I am surprised to even hear Thomasites who are one of
| the socio-econmic mores facing persecution in a state
| where BJP has no footprint.
|
| Perhaps you are surprised because he didn't say that!
| senthil_rajasek wrote:
| I found this segment on Amanpour & Co. helpful in
| understanding nationalism and how it's used by fascists.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/how-
| fasc...
|
| My take away was fascists gain compliance by nationalism
| above anything including basic human rights.
| sremani wrote:
| The great Stalin himself was Nationalist in spite of the
| whole world communism spiel. When shit hits the fan,
| 'national identity' where people coalesce. Damn it, right
| in front of our fucking eyes, CCP is doing this shit with
| their wolf warrior diplomacy.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| Nationalism vs. Patriotism
|
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/an-important-distinction
| rayiner wrote:
| A healthy nationalism is something countries should
| cultivate, in particular to unify disparate minority groups
| with the majority. A nationalism where a Hindu majority are
| stripping a Muslim minority of citizenship is probably not
| the good kind of nationalism.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| That's not what is actually happening, and is a very common
| incorrect characterization by progressive/Western
| groups/others. India's Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
| grants refugee status and paths to citizenship for refugees
| from some of the surrounding countries, but only if they
| belong to certain persecuted groups. If you're a Muslim
| from a Muslim-majority country, then almost always you are
| not a refugee escaping persecution. In fact Pakistan,
| Bangladesh, and Afghanistan all have Islam as their
| official state religion. So why would you be given the same
| refugee status and path to citizenship in India?
|
| You have to also keep in mind, when you're asking for
| nationalism to take the form of unification, to Hindus in
| India that sounds like asking victims to accommodate their
| oppressors, given hundreds of years of invasions and brutal
| occupation of India by Islamic powers and then Western
| colonial powers. The push from Western actors like America
| to push for a secular India is equivalent to saying
| "indigenous people in America need to make way for the
| occupiers that perpetrated their genocide".
| rdedev wrote:
| If you are an LGBTQ muslim in one of those muslim
| majority countries you listed above then you will
| certainly be persecuted. A single factor should not be
| used to determine the refugee status of a person
| john_max_1 wrote:
| So, one criteria is bad just because others weren't
| considered? FWIW, Muslim hijras are not treated badly in
| these Muslim countries.
| danans wrote:
| What kind of narrative can realistically serve as a
| foundation for a "healthy nationalism"? Abstract inclusive
| concepts like "Unity in Diversity", and "human rights" seem
| to have less ability to unify people than exclusionary
| identities like religion, race, language, or tribe.
|
| Arguably, the things that have kept those exclusionary
| narratives somewhat at bay in the last half century have
| been
|
| (1) the memories of the previouos horrors committed in the
| name of nationalism (though they are fading)
|
| (2) advances in common welfare after WWII due to the the
| combination of industrial/technological advances and the
| government policies.
|
| For example, would we have had the civil rights movement in
| the US if the standard of living for many white Americans
| didn't dramatically increase in the decades just prior?
| Hard to say for sure, but I doubt it. This is why growing
| inequality is so dangerous - it makes people less amenable
| to "healthy" nationalism and far more susceptible to
| "unhealthy" kinds.
| rayiner wrote:
| You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real,
| concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary.
| In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We
| have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil
| Armstrong, MLK, etc. We teach our children their stories.
| We have shared rituals, such as being conspicuously
| patriotic on the Fourth of July. We have shared objects
| of derision, such as French "surrender monkeys." We have
| a bottomless well of national pride, even when we don't.
| The New York Times is ashamed of America in many
| instances, but will happily turn on a dime and condemn
| the French as racists and sexists for not conforming to
| American precepts of race and sex relations.
| bhupy wrote:
| Until the mid-2010's the US's creedal flavor of
| "nationalism" was arguably the most principles-based in
| the world; something I take great pride in as a brown
| American son of immigrants. It was a paragon of what
| nationalism _should look like_.
|
| Unfortunately, in 2021, we've lost that collective
| nationalism, and I'm not sure we're better off for it.
| danans wrote:
| > You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real,
| concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary
|
| A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an
| entire diverse country? Not likely. The only thing more
| tribalism will do is strengthen the existing stark tribal
| groups we have (which are primarily racial, religious,
| and class).
|
| > In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We
| have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil
| Armstrong, MLK, etc.
|
| As important those famous figures are, you (correctly)
| describe it as a pantheon, AKA the idolization of these
| individuals more for their surface appearance than what
| they represent. The amount of lip service paid to MLK in
| particular is astounding, especially by politicians who
| actively undermine his movement for racial and economic
| justice.
|
| I agree that having such a pantheon is part of a national
| identity, but at best it is set of symbols that matter
| only because of an underlying broadly shared sense of
| economic well being.
|
| > We have shared objects of derision, such as French
| "surrender monkeys."
|
| I think this is the example you are presenting as
| "exclusionary", but I'm not sure what makes it redeeming
| as a basis of national identity, nor is it as widely
| shared an object derision as you suggest.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| So instead of a siloed platform, you would advocate for a
| nation to allow tech employees in San Francisco to influence
| other countries' elections, censor their politicians, control
| their societies' discourse, decide what's allowed and
| disallowed, and so on? That seems like a call for external rule
| and a threat to national sovereignty.
|
| There are real consequences to such acquiescence. Not everyone
| agrees with American progressive worldviews and Twitter
| obviously enacts one-sided censorship based on those views. As
| an example of the kind of topic that would be treated
| differently in Western social media versus other platforms,
| consider that India has historically treated transgendered
| people as a third gender (by my understanding). This feels more
| logical to me than trying to forcefully redefine existing
| genders or creating an infinite proliferation of genders, but
| under Twitter or Facebook's rule, any such opinions or debate
| would be deleted and users sharing such views would be banned.
| So why should recent rapid changes in Western culture take
| precedence over long-lasting local culture in this instance?
| I'm not claiming that either is right or wrong, but simply that
| the increasing degree of censorship and control enacted by
| American tech companies reflects the views and desires of a
| narrow minority globally - and therefore they shouldn't be
| given the power that they have.
|
| In the case of the farmers protests, I think there's an "other
| side of this issue" for the very problems you are alluding to.
| Factual errors, widespread misleading claims, meme-ification,
| and trolling are common tools of those who are on the side of
| the Punjab farmers and those on the other side. To call out
| only one side feels misleading to me.
| sremani wrote:
| Pretty much that. Most of HN is for Cultural Colonialism, but
| you know when it is dressed and wrapped in human rights and
| other bogus shit while buying Nikes and Apples made by real
| slave labor.
|
| Peak virtue signaling.
| skaul wrote:
| I read the article, and it's a little concerning that a social
| media platform founder is getting upset by questions about
| platform speech regulation, which is a pretty basic product
| concern. I like the idea of a Twitter-like platform that caters
| better to Indian regional languages, but the problem with the
| founder saying "I'm not political so the platform is not
| political" is that his users are most definitely political and it
| won't remain "free for all" if the most vulnerable users are
| harassed off of it.
|
| Also genuinely confused about the answer to the last question:
| "So there will be government-regulated laws that would govern the
| speech on Koo?" "No, you're randomly putting words in my mouth.
| I'm not enjoying this conversation. I'm an independent person;
| I'm apolitical..." Based on everything he said before, it sounds
| like the answer should have been a resounding Yes? He wants to
| offload the speech governing to laws?
| egypturnash wrote:
| Well good luck guys, have fun holding onto that "we will only
| take things down if the law makes us" stance once you discover
| what kind of nasty shit that can lead to.
| vmdr wrote:
| Odd title or adjective. Considering the name of the country is
| Hindustan/Bharat.
| sequoia wrote:
| "instructed their followers to leave Western social networks for
| Koo, a local, _free-speech_ platform. "
|
| This is a funny turn of phrase given that it sounds like a lot of
| people are leaving twitter for Koo because twitter isn't doing
| _enough_ banning to suit them.
| eunos wrote:
| There's also some opinion that advocates having self-reliant
| communication channels and tech-platforms.
|
| Recent banning of Trump, Parler and Australian news from
| Facebook invigorated their drive.
| sequoia wrote:
| I support what the Koo founder is doing, he sounds like an
| upstanding guy who wants to build a social platform that
| better meets his countrymen's needs (Indian language) and
| that's fantastic. I just thought the "we're going to a _free
| speech_ platform " was a funny angle when twitter's being
| abandoned _in this case_ for too much speech.
| connectsnk wrote:
| The writer has already judged the users of this platform as
| 'Hindu nationalists'. If someone likes Modi he is classified as a
| 'Hindu Nationalist' and if someone dislikes Modi he is classified
| as 'Anti National'.
|
| In reality there is no difference between right wing or left wing
| ideologists these days. Both are highly biased and see every
| event through their coloured glasses instead of being capable of
| discussing it dispassionately. Any intelligent person is better
| off ignoring both sides.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Both are highly biased and see every event through their
| coloured glasses instead of being capable of discussing it
| dispassionately
|
| I suspect that this is a human trait, rather than one only
| found among partisans.
| foolinaround wrote:
| While the Koo founder sounds idealistic in his interview, it is
| clear that he is willing to be bound by Indian laws - which a
| large segment of the country feels that it is being applied
| selectively.
|
| so, Koo will be patronized orimarily by the followers of the
| ruling party, and will be seen as such, even if it was not his
| intent.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Worth noting: Under Indian law, truth is not necessarily a
| defense to defamation.
|
| But perhaps having being black-and-white democratically enacted
| rules (such as they are) is better than having opaque rules set
| by unelected San Francisco employees.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > Worth noting: Under Indian law, truth is not necessarily a
| defense to defamation.
|
| So what is defamation defined as then? Offense?
| foolinaround wrote:
| i have to agree here that theoretically yes, laws enacted by
| a democracy are better than those by an oligarchy
|
| as long as this is not the only app one can use in India,
| etc, this is fine.
| 99_00 wrote:
| This resonated with me:
|
| >What we are seeing is that India wants to be more self-reliant.
| India includes everybody. Our app doesn't understand "left" or
| "right." I don't understand "left" or "right." I'm an
| entrepreneur; I'm extremely apolitical. And I'm all for the
| development of the country. If Koo as a statement can make us
| self-reliant on our own social networks and technology, then we
| should be cheering for it. We shouldn't unnecessarily politicize
| it.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| It's a worthy goal but may prove difficult to execute. Voat's
| original goal was to be a free-speech alternative to Reddit.
| What happened was that it was then flooded with racists who
| shaped the culture of the site.
|
| That could happen with this site too. A site's culture is
| determined by a complicated combination of engineering
| decisions, moderation decisions, and the behavior of its users.
| john_max_1 wrote:
| The modern day blue-tick is equivalent of "Rai Bahadur" title
| British used to award to their subjects in colonial India.
|
| Twitter banned TrueIndology multiple times while s/he would have
| been given a blue-tick had he been a leftist.
|
| https://swarajyamag.com/politics/highhandedness-of-the-left-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-19 23:01 UTC)