[HN Gopher] Police in India visited Twitter offices over 'manipu...
___________________________________________________________________
Police in India visited Twitter offices over 'manipulated media'
label
Author : jmsflknr
Score : 151 points
Date : 2021-05-24 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| pjkundert wrote:
| I'll preface this by stating that me and my family, and the
| _huge_ number of like-minded people I am aligned with, have --
| for _generations_ -- been the most law-abiding, compliant, quiet,
| respectful and hard-working people in our communities. What I am
| about to write is absolutely without precedent, and should
| therefore be terrifying...
|
| The Quislings in the spineless political class in the United
| States and Canada have revealed themselves, and are absolutely
| disgusting. The contempt shown by Facebook, Google, Twitter,
| et.al. of legal free speech rights, and the absolute, brazen
| _complicity_ of our governments in their _lawlessness_ tells us
| exactly what we need to know.
|
| Nothing short of a complete expulsion of these brigands from
| political office, followed by conviction in the courts of law for
| abridging the constitutionally protected rights of their
| citizenry is acceptable.
|
| However, until the courts are also purged -- since they have been
| overtaken by spineless (in the USA) and complicit (in Canada)
| judges -- nothing like this can occur.
|
| I am happy, though, for one thing. At least we can never again
| labor under the illusion/assumption that our constitutionally
| guaranteed (the Constitution in the USA, and the Charter in
| Canada) rights are being protected! It is absolutely clear, now,
| that our western nations have to be re-taken from these despots
| who have usurped authority -- unfortunately, probably by force.
|
| Heaven help us all.
| skavi wrote:
| How exactly is this connected to TFA?
| pjkundert wrote:
| The fact that this is news _at all_ , is how.
|
| The local presences of these companies should have been sued
| into oblivion in every law-abiding nation by now, at their
| first refusal to support Canadian and US free speech rights.
| If they didn't comply with the order to maintain that
| nation's citizen's rights, they should have been disabled at
| the border.
|
| If Google, Twitter, etc. are satisfied to only operate in
| lawless regimes (eg. North Korea), then they can carry on
| with their present behavior. To operate in our law-abiding
| nations, they should be minimally be expected to operate
| according to the law of the land, which is circumscribed by
| the Constitution/Charter.
| skavi wrote:
| I am beginning to doubt you actually read the article. In
| any case, are you trying to compare India to North Korea?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Are you confusing Facebook, Google and Twitter for the
| government? Otherwise I can't understand how you conclude that
| free speech rights are being violated.
| pjkundert wrote:
| The fact that Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and Twitter are
| in total agreement with the current governments of the USA
| and Canada, and amplify/sink opinions based on their level of
| compliance with the accepted dogma of both the company and
| current government -- while simultaneously destroying
| (Parler) or deplatforming (Gab) any viable alternative
| platform?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Could it be that people legitimately disagree with you, without
| being quislings or whatever? I think what has changed is the
| deligitimization of differing opinions and the dehumanization
| of people who hold them. That has become normalized - ok, even
| encouraged behavior - for a certain political grouping, which
| is indeed deadly to a democracy, where the foundation is
| respecting each other's opinions - i.e., we each get an equal
| vote. If you don't embrace that, then that is what has changed.
|
| Part of freedom is that others are free to do things you don't
| like and I don't like, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
| The owner of a business can forbid discussion of a topic, such
| as sports, and kick out or fire anyone who doesn't comply.
| Heck, they can kick out or fire people for (almost) any reason
| or without a reason at all. It's their business; they are free.
|
| Free speech is a restriction on the government's actions, not
| on a business's: Government is limited in restricting speech
| and similarly it is limited in restricting the behavior of
| private businesses (though not as limited as when restricting
| speech).
|
| Private organizations also have good reasons, IMHO, to restrict
| speech. If you were at a restaurant and insulting people at
| neighboring tables, the restaurant would be right to kick you
| out. If you were at a political discussion club and insisted on
| repeating disinformation, they would be right to kick you out.
| You would be hurting the experience and value for other
| members. But private organizations also restrict speech in ways
| I object to.
| pjkundert wrote:
| Disagreement is _awesome_. We _need_ more disagreement,
| carried out in reliably truth-telling public forums (which do
| not alter the ratio of up /down votes and related
| algorithms). If a platform wants to only host legal speech
| _complying with its own views_ (and filter everything else it
| deems "bad"), then it's a news paper, not a forum. It has
| editorial responsibilities (and legal penalties and
| remedies), if so.
|
| Governments using "private" businesses to distort public
| debate has a long and horrific history (see every major mass-
| death totalitarian regime; Mao, Hitler, Stalin, ...). So, I
| am _very_ worried about all media agreeing in lock-step with
| government! (eg. _All_ global government, media, education,
| judicial and medical authorities in _total_ agreement with
| global mass deployment of experimental medical treatments,
| for example, and sinking /de-platforming all dissent...)
|
| I will lay down my life to ensure _you_ have the right to
| publicly display your opinion -- _especially_ if I find it
| ridiculous, or even repulsive. Unfortunately, I suspect you
| might _not_ agree with likewise protecting mine. And that is
| very unfortunate, and (I believe), ultimately self-
| destructive.
|
| Look at this debate. We're debating. HN is one of the few
| platforms where this is even possible anymore -- and only
| because it's sort of back-water and nerdy. Nobody,
| essentially, reads it (among the world of "normals"). And if
| they did, it would probably fall to a combination of "Endless
| September" and political pressure.
| ngc248 wrote:
| Good, at least one country is taking a stand against the totally
| lawless sewer that social media has become.
| dsjfalksjdflksa wrote:
| Per the article, the police visited the office to deliver a legal
| notice, not to investigate the office. In the United States legal
| notice MUST be delivered in person. It cannot be done over mail
| or email. I'd expect India is similar.
| gkcgautam wrote:
| They had gone to raid the office, but since the Twitter team is
| working remotely due to Covid, the police couldn't find anyone
| in the office and changed the narrative to save their face.
| truth_ wrote:
| Only one officer is enough to serve a notice. Why the horde?
| knolax wrote:
| Maybe some random American social media company whose politics
| aren't even liked by most Americans shouldn't meddle in the
| affairs of India. I hope this ends with Twitter being banned. I'm
| tired of Silicon Valley techies grandstanding about
| "disinformation" when their entire platforms are nothing but
| disinformation.
| alert0 wrote:
| Title does not match article.
|
| >Delhi Police raids Twitter offices over manipulated label
|
| >Police in India visited Twitter offices over 'manipulated media'
| label
| dang wrote:
| We've updated the title above. As others pointed out, it's
| possible that the publication changed their own headline. This
| case smells like that to me. Btw, one trick is to look at the
| URL, since those are harder to change after publication. In
| this case the URL includes the word "raids".
|
| Edit: yep: https://web.archive.org/web/20210524155244/https://t
| echcrunc.... It would be interesting to know why they rolled it
| back. I haven't read the article, but I bet there was something
| excessive about the original claim, because they've softened it
| in two ways: changing "raided" to "visited" and putting scare
| quotes around "manipulated".
| llacb47 wrote:
| It was most likely changed. Very common in digital journalism.
| max_hammer wrote:
| Clickbait journalism. Its a race to the bottom to get attention
| of reader using raunchy titles
| amriksohata wrote:
| Highly misleading title, this was not a raid, they issued a
| notice as they were putting "manipulated media" tags on well
| known politicians, it was seen as Twitter directly attempting to
| shut down democracy in India
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| How many police are required to deliver a letter? Why not mail
| it or email it? How about using attorneys?
| dsjfalksjdflksa wrote:
| In the United States legal notice MUST be delivered in
| person. It cannot be done over mail or email.
|
| I'd expect india is similar.
| nradov wrote:
| That isn't really correct. In some circumstances US courts
| allow service via other channels.
| fl0wenol wrote:
| You can absolutely deliver it via mail (some states require
| that), or have a process server leave it with their legal
| department.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_4#rule_4_c_3_
| C
| amriksohata wrote:
| It's quite common to get disruptive behaviour when serving
| these kind of notices. They didn't realise most were working
| from home
| nullifidian wrote:
| In related news Russia plans to force tech giants to open offices
| on its soil specifically to raid them:
| https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/05/21/russia-moves-to-fo...
| skybrian wrote:
| The next move: "We don't do any real work here, but you're
| getting hazard pay for a reason."
| sargun wrote:
| China had a similar rule for doing business. I worked with a
| company that that ~60 engineers that never wrote a line of
| production code in China, because they were afraid of IP
| leaks.
| fernandopj wrote:
| It would be a deterrent to hire ex-KBG, ex-military, family
| members of key politicians...
| knolax wrote:
| Playing hostage games with a nationstate. Jesus christ you
| techies have an inflated ego.
| codegladiator wrote:
| > searched two offices of Twitter .... to seek more information
| about Twitter's rationale to label one of the tweets
|
| What were they expecting in a physical raid ?
|
| > An hour into the search process ... vacated both of Twitter's
| offices because they were closed and there were no Twitter
| employees to engage with
|
| Again, what were they expecting ?
| dbrueck wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_o_O7v1ews
| crooked-v wrote:
| They were expecting to harass Twitter employees and
| inconvenience Twitter.
| [deleted]
| senthilnayagam wrote:
| Delhi Police served a legal notice to Twitter India, it was not a
| raid
|
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/toolkit...
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| > Delhi Police, controlled by India's central government, on
| Monday evening searched two offices of Twitter -- in the
| national capital state of Delhi and Gurgaon, in neighboring
| state of Haryana -- to seek more information about Twitter's
| rationale to label one of the tweets by ruling partly BJP
| spokesperson as "manipulated media."
|
| > An hour into the search process, Delhi Police Special Cell
| team, which investigates terrorism and other crimes, vacated
| both of Twitter's offices because they were closed and there
| were no Twitter employees to engage with at the premises
|
| That sure sounds like a physical raid.
| testplzignore wrote:
| I'm so confused. The reporting on this sucks.
|
| Did they stand at the front door knocking for an hour waiting
| for someone to come out? Did they physically break into the
| office? Does "closed" mean the office was physically
| closed/locked? Does "no Twitter employees" mean there were no
| humans physically present at the office, or does it mean
| there were no people directly employed by Twitter at the
| office? E.g., are they not counting security and other 24/7
| staff that would normally be at an office building?
| dsjfalksjdflksa wrote:
| They were searching for a representative to serve the notice
| to.
| moate wrote:
| Serve notice of what? This didn't seem to be mentioned in
| the article.
|
| Also, is that a thing police in India do? Here in the US,
| if documents need to be physically served, it's usually
| done by a single representative of the court, not a
| policeman, let alone many police.
| JI00912 wrote:
| ...surprise visit?
|
| ...unexpected company?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Yes. Otherwise, an e-mail to Twitter's attorneys would have
| sufficed.
| yangikan wrote:
| The ruling party released a fake document, suggesting that the
| opposition is engaging in subversive activities. It was fact
| checked by various independent agencies and found to be a fake
| document. Twitter added a "manipulated media" label to those
| tweets. Delhi police, which is directly controlled by the Indian
| government raided the office of Twitter. It is not done with the
| intention of finding anything. It is to harass and to "send a
| message" that such acts won't be tolerated.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Maybe Twitter shouldn't get in the middle of these types of
| things.
| Vinnl wrote:
| If Twitter just shows everyone all Tweets, people'd quickly
| get overwhelmed, and a few very active Twitter users would
| drown out all the rest. So they add an algorithm that tries
| to determine which Tweets a user is most likely to want to
| see - now they're in the middle, deciding what someone sees.
| linuxftw wrote:
| People are free to follow or unfollow whoever they choose.
| If they want to play 'fact checker' then they will be
| subject to regulations.
| [deleted]
| ycombinete wrote:
| Catch-22. When they don't they're attacked for harbouring,
| and allowing the algorithmic spread of, fake news.
|
| Besides, sites like Facebook and Twitter started to "get in
| the middle of these things" the moment they stopped simply
| showing you a chronological series of posts from people/pages
| you follow; to a weighted interest system, based on opaque
| algorithms.
| linuxftw wrote:
| If people are smart enough to use the internet, they're
| smart enough to determine for themselves who's telling the
| truth and who isn't.
|
| If they're not smart enough, then who cares what they think
| anyway?
| harles wrote:
| Who knows what data they might try to harvest in the process.
| It's a scary situation. Hopefully Twitter has good safeguards
| against such tactics.
| skavi wrote:
| What is up with the comments in this thread? How are people
| seeing this as the Indian government taking a stand against
| censorship or whatever? The same government is upset that
| Twitter reinstated several accounts critical of the
| administration.
| nindalf wrote:
| In general, Indians living abroad are highly supportive of
| the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Not his party, or
| his government, or his policies ... just him personally.
| Hacker News contains many such people. They are responsible
| for the bizarre comments you've read on this thread.
|
| On a related note, this thread will soon be flagged, like all
| threads that are even mildly, indirectly critical of Narendra
| Modi. Enjoy the thread while it's up.
| max_hammer wrote:
| Anyone having a different opinion than me is wrong ?
| renewiltord wrote:
| No, that's not true. But in this case, the grandparent
| comment is correct.
|
| The current Indian Prime Minister is very popular among
| Bay Area Indians and techies and so they will defend him
| nearly always.
| sharadov wrote:
| Also India leads the way in shutting down the internet at
| the smallest sign of dissent, under Modi it has slowly
| but surely devolved into an authoritarian state
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50819905
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/asia/india-internet-cut-
| farme...
| sharadov wrote:
| Oh yeah they love him to death, try having a rational
| conversation with them and it quickly devolves into
| personal attacks.
| dang wrote:
| This generalization comes up in every polarized thread
| about every polarized topic. Literally every side that
| feels passionately on such a topic feels like the community
| is outrageously biased against their side. For every
| sarcastic and aggrieved "anything that supports $X will get
| downvoted and flagged" or "anything even mildly critical
| will get $Y", there are isomorphic comments from the
| opposing side which are just as sarcastic and aggrieved,
| only with the obvious bit flipped.
|
| In reality, the community is divided similarly to how
| society at large is divided. But the actual experience of
| this is extremely difficult to bear when we're all bumping
| into each other in one big Brownian room. I wrote about
| this at length here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
|
| Each side is so upset by the manifestations of the other
| side that they come to see them as utterly dominating the
| community. This is out of proportion numerically, but
| that's because it's not a numerical experience but an
| emotional one.
|
| We humans place a much greater emphasis on what we dislike
| than what they like--the bad (e.g. what you disagree with)
| stands out more than the good (what you agree with), and
| you are much more likely to notice it and weight it more
| heavily [1]. This is what leads to false feelings of
| generality [2]. Unfortunately it also leads to the feeling
| of being surrounded by enemies or, as I sometimes put it,
| demons [3]. This dynamic encourages flamewars, because each
| side feels like it is the righteous underdog in an unfairly
| biased situation, and anyone who feels that way will feel
| justified in lashing out in "defense".
|
| If the combatants in such a situation could really see how
| closely they are mirroring each other, it would surely
| change something somehow.
|
| I definitely don't mean to pick on you personally, nor the
| theme of Indian politics in particular; it's just one of
| many, and this dynamic seems to be universal. I think the
| next big phase of work we need to do as a community is to
| develop more awareness of it, and that's work that we all
| need to contribute to.
|
| [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=tru
| e&que...
|
| [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=tru
| e&que...
|
| [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=fal
| se&so...
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Entirely unrelated to questions about the balance of the
| community at large, do you have any sense for how this
| perspective approach can stand up to things like
| asymmetric astroturfing (e.g. what are sometimes called
| "troll farms")?
|
| I don't spend time analyzing HN discourse like I think
| you probably do as a natural part of your role here, but
| it occasionally feels (perhaps a little less here?) like
| the actions of certain entities get a higher percentage
| of suspiciously blind or low effort defenders and
| whatabouters than others on high traffic public fora.
|
| nb. Like you, I'm not talking about specifically this
| thread just the concept in general.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| Either they are the Modi sycophants or just don't like
| twitter and otherwise have no clue what's going on in India.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Twitter's done more to burn its credibility in the west's
| public imagination than Modi's regime has.
| [deleted]
| neither_color wrote:
| My guess is that people of certain political leanings have
| seen multiple stories "fact-checked" by
| Facebook/Twitter/Google as false and suppressed turn out to
| be true or partially true months down the line. These people
| are relieved to see another government, any government, give
| twitter/facebook/google _" what's coming to it"_
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > people of certain political leanings have seen multiple
| stories "fact-checked" by Facebook/Twitter/Google as false
| and suppressed turn out to be true or partially true months
| down the line.
|
| Nothing is perfect, but what are you referring to
| specifically?
| sol_invictus wrote:
| Politifact and COVID origin
| mlindner wrote:
| Conspiracy theories that COVID was released intentionally
| by China are still false, same as they were every time
| this idea gets brought up.
| suifbwish wrote:
| You know this how? Last I checked China refused to let
| anyone audit their labs or medical facilities.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Any basis for this? The origin is unknown, afaik.
| sol_invictus wrote:
| Problem is and was stating "lab origin" as a false
| narrative when we truly just don't know.
|
| Of course a Politifact that says "we dont know" is
| useless and so they have to invent truths to be relevant.
| hn8788 wrote:
| The Hunter Biden laptop story comes to mind. Twitter was
| even blocking DMs with a link to the story, but it turned
| out that what was in it was true, even if it was
| inconsequential. I also remember seeing a Facebook ad
| that had a video of Biden saying he was going to end
| fracking, but since his campaign's official stance was
| that they weren't going end it, the ad was removed for
| false information.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Can you provide some basis for saying it's true? That is
| not my understanding, but I'm always interested in
| learning more.
| barbacoa wrote:
| Early in 2020 alternative media discussions that COVID
| may have leaked from a lab were ruthlessly "fack-checked"
| and censored from social media for misinformation. Now
| that we know more these claims have become accepted as a
| very real possibility.
| edoceo wrote:
| Were they censored? IIRC they were only labeled as "not
| fact checked" - which at the time was true.
|
| It seems lots of emerging stories should carry that
| label.
| barbacoa wrote:
| COVID lab theory clams were rated false which means
| social media platforms throttle their visibility and
| organizations posting those claims were threatened with
| suspension.
|
| As politi-facts put it:
|
| "There is no evidence that the coronavirus was made in a
| lab. The overwhelming consensus among public health
| experts is that the virus evolved naturally."
| newfriend wrote:
| Not done by a tech company, but here's an example of
| dubious fact checking:
|
| @MSNBC Oct 9, 2016 FACT CHECK: Trump says Clinton "acid
| washed" her email server. She did not.
|
| The Claim
|
| Trump says Clinton 'acid washed' her email server.
|
| The Truth
|
| Clinton's team used an app called BleachBit; she did not
| use a corrosive chemical.
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/785299708730339328?l
| ang=en
| enkid wrote:
| Except Trump actually thought she used chemicals to clean
| the server, so there's nothing wrong with this fact
| check.[0]
|
| [0] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/10/donald-
| trump-see...
|
| Edit: If you downvoted me, please explain why. I don't
| get it unless you care more about being on the right side
| than knowing the truth.
| actuator wrote:
| I have followed this building up on Twitter and as someone not
| intimately familiar with this.
|
| > The ruling party released a fake document
|
| It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how did
| Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there has been
| accusations from both sides without proof.
|
| I will be really scared if Twitter is taking a stand based on
| their judgement of what might have happened.
|
| Already, censorship and control by social media platforms is on
| a slippery slope. We can't let them become the arbiters of
| truth. It might suit one side today but might not suit the same
| tomorrow when decision comes from a black box.
|
| Also, yes these platforms are private spaces but they hold too
| much power in shaping the public discourse.
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| >> The ruling party released a fake document
|
| > It very well might be(not that I know about this), but how
| did Twitter figure this out? As far as I understand, there
| has been accusations from both sides without proof.
|
| The article answers your question: A prominent fact-checking
| organization examined the document. You can then question the
| fact-checking organization, and eventually nobody can say
| anything.
|
| Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own
| political candidates?
| actuator wrote:
| I read through it and it says part of the document has been
| admitted to be true.
|
| > You can then question the fact-checking organization, and
| eventually nobody can say anything.
|
| If I am a citizen of the said country, is a private fact
| checking organisation answerable to me?
|
| I am not saying they are lying, but what are the checks and
| balances on them.
|
| > Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's own
| political candidates?
|
| Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why other
| arms of the government exist, like judiciary. You might
| question judidicary as well but at least on some level they
| are bound by their constitutional duties and have to follow
| the law of the land.
|
| My worry is, in a lot of places in the world, the more we
| delegate this trust to private entities, th more powerful
| we make them. They aren't answerable to people of those
| countries.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I read through it and it says part of the document has
| been admitted to be true.
|
| I don't understand: You asked whether Twitter had any
| basis for marking it false. I said the basis was (at
| least in part) a major fact-checking organization. I'm
| not sure how the above is a response to that. Also, can
| you provide some basis to your claim? Every lie is partly
| true; someone who says things that are 'partly true' is a
| liar.
|
| >> Should government be the arbiter of truth? About it's
| own political candidates?
|
| > Elected governments shouldn't be, but isn't this why
| other arms of the government exist, like judiciary.
|
| I strongly disagree: In democracies the judiciary is not
| at all there to decide truth. It's there to apply the
| law, which at times involves finding facts of specific
| situations before it, and then only to a degree
| sufficient to apply the law. For example, the judiciary
| is not there to decide the facts of climate change. It is
| there to apply emissions laws, and to find the facts
| about what someone may be emitting to the degree needed
| to apply the law.
|
| In a democracy, it is up to citizens - you and I included
| - to decide what we believe. There is no authority or
| mechanism that will save you from that challenging duty.
| Democracy is a solution, in a sense, to the problem of
| there being no source of truth. It is governemnt of the
| people, by the people, for the people.
| actuator wrote:
| > In democracies the judiciary is not at all there to
| decide truth. It's there to apply the law
|
| Yes, and in this case. It would have gone something like
| this, the side which thinks it has been wrongly
| represented files a libel lawsuit and then facts are
| checked and the case is argued in a transparent manner.
|
| What happened right now was action by a black box on
| commentary from another black box. We know before wars,
| stories have been carried by private companies("news"
| organisations) to set the narrative. They turned out to
| be false but did they ever answer for them? No.
|
| > It is governemnt of the people, by the people, for the
| people.
|
| But is this by people? I can choose to not believe in it
| but do you disagree the vast amount of influence these
| platforms hold and how they can set the tone of the
| discourse.
|
| Wasn't this the exact alleged issue in 2016 elections?
| FB's targeting was used to selectively set narrative.
|
| Are we fine with unchecked use of these all mighty tools?
| Judgmentality wrote:
| I find your stance slightly bizarre. You don't trust
| twitter to be the arbiter of truth (which is fair), but
| you think the Indian government which is widely credited
| to be falsifying data (I can point you to sources on
| this, I even personally know a journalist there) will be
| held accountable to its people?
|
| Sure, it'd be nice to hold your government accountable.
| But when your ruler is effectively a tyrant in a
| government that is laughably calling itself a democracy,
| I'd rather have twitter provide its own opinion as well.
| Because at the end of the day you as the reader can still
| decide to ignore twitter's judgment and just read the
| document as you could before. It's additional
| information, not censorship - whereas the government
| wants to limit information.
|
| Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than
| they're forcing you to trust the government. You can
| ignore twitter's label and still try to hold the Indian
| government accountable - it's a non sequitur.
| actuator wrote:
| > but you think the Indian government which is widely
| credited to be falsifying data will be held accountable
| to its people?
|
| Isn't this what elections are there for?
|
| Didn't the ruling party lose a major election just few
| weeks back? It was widely covered as a victory against
| them even in international press.
|
| > Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than
| they're forcing you to trust the government.
|
| It seems you strongly oppose the current establishment.
| Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked
| content against them the same way? It might have been
| true but it might also have been pressure by the
| establishment.
|
| It is not like anyone is asking anyone to trust Twitter.
| My main issue with that is the sheer power a private
| company not answerable to the citizens holds.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > Would you have been fine if Twitter would have marked
| content against them the same way?
|
| 100%. My stance is that twitter can add its opinion just
| the same as anyone. The government trying to censor an
| opinion is what I consider to be the problem. Even if
| that opinion is "covid is fake" I think people should be
| allowed to say it because I believe in free speech.
|
| > My main issue with that is the sheer power a private
| company not answerable to the citizens holds.
|
| Then you must really hate (almost) every news
| organization in the world. They literally make it their
| business to do the very thing you seem to oppose. And as
| far as I'm concerned they have no more credibility, but
| that's entirely subjective.
| actuator wrote:
| > I think people should be allowed to say it because I
| believe in free speech.
|
| I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter
| colored that free speech with what they thought was
| right.
|
| > Then you must really hate (almost) every news
| organization in the world. They literally make it their
| business to do the very thing you seem to oppose
|
| Oh, I do hate them. Passing commentary from high
| pedestals and this false sense of intellectual rigour
| about their work, pretending they don't have any biases
| at all.
|
| This is why when they complain about social media
| companies eating their lunch, I have no sympathy for
| them. They just hate the fact that the power that was
| reserved to just them has been just given away to
| everyone.
|
| All one needs to understand how good most journalism is
| to just watch coverage of news about a field they
| understand well.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > I do too, but this is the exact problem here. Twitter
| colored that free speech with what they thought was
| right.
|
| I think this is where we disagree. Yes, twitter added
| their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned why is
| that worse than _anyone_ adding their own opinion to it?
| My point is twitter adding their opinion should be as
| inconsequential as a random person with 6 followers
| replying to the tweet saying "this is fake news." The
| only difference is because people give twitter more
| credibility than a random stranger, which is the
| fundamental problem of trust in society. No amount of
| laws can fix this if you truly advocate for free speech.
| People just need to educate themselves better about what
| to believe.
| actuator wrote:
| It might just be labeling today, next time it might be
| suppression of posts in feeds, eventually they might just
| shadow block posts or remove them entirely.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Yes, that point is valid. I simplified my argument for
| the sake of conversation, but there are really two other
| very real issues I didn't address because it would
| _wildly_ increase the scope of this conversation (and I
| don 't want to spend hours here).
|
| There's the platform versus publisher issue, where
| companies are arguably trying to be both.
|
| And there's the social media companies already using
| black box algorithms to control their feeds.
|
| So I'd argue with twitter everything already falls under
| the latter issue, which doesn't mean it's okay just that
| this is larger issue for any social media company and
| it's more complicated than just free speech (which is
| already more nuanced than I've described).
|
| So yes, once twitter begins censoring opinions (and
| arguably they already do simply by having an algorithm
| make a feed for you) then they are equally culpable.
|
| As to the corporation vs government issue, yes I'd prefer
| to hold governments accountable for these things and I
| agree they _should_ be the entities that handle this. But
| I see that as an ideal and meanwhile I care more about
| practical solutions to help us improve where we are and
| hopefully get there some day.
| actuator wrote:
| I agree with your elaborated points. :)
| lota-putty wrote:
| There is a saying in India "ulttaa cor kotvaal ko ddaaNtte", i.e.
| "a thief accusing the sentry".
|
| There are very few(handful) media houses in India that stand
| against current Central Govt. politics in India.
|
| If Govt. of India doesn't like Twitter policies, it's free to
| block it or create it's own propaganda machine.
| riffic wrote:
| any government can spin up its own ActivityPub-compliant
| service today and basically be their own Twitter.
|
| media organizations can do this too, and it would be welcomed
| to have more journalists in that particular space.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-24 23:03 UTC)