[HN Gopher] Twitter begins hiring to comply with India's new rules
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter begins hiring to comply with India's new rules
Author : shivbhatt
Score : 152 points
Date : 2021-07-08 14:25 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| fukd wrote:
| Funnily farmers are not on twitter (my father doesnt even know
| what its) but some elitists are deciding whats good for us
| farmers on twitter.
|
| Do you guys even when the reforms happend last time? nor the main
| setfacks that we face?
|
| These are the same people who go on tv shows and make a scene
| until govt bans export of produce whenever tomatos/onions hit
| even 50rs.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| It is worth noting that the IT mister resigned[1] just a day back
| in a _massive_ cabinet reshuffling (if you could call that).
|
| Twitter attracted the ruling government's wrath when it didn't
| censor/takedown Tweets supporting farmers' protests _and_ those
| critical of government 's handling of COVID's 2nd wave.
|
| [1] https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/breaking-ravi-
| shankar...
| ridiculous_leke wrote:
| That doesn't seem true. Popular platforms like YouTube,
| Facebook and Twitter still have a lot of "pro-farmer" posts and
| at least the former two are not exactly in a tussle with the
| Government. The government's relationship Twitter took a wrong
| turn when Twitter displayed lethargy in removing content that
| propagated fake news and celebrated terrorists(as per india)
|
| https://www.news18.com/news/india/remove-tweets-accounts-rel...
|
| https://m.timesofindia.com/india/govt-defends-twitter-ban-sa...
|
| The new regulations do seem to be a stretch. It's like using an
| artillery to destroy a skirmisher.
| invertedreversi wrote:
| Let's be specific. The Government requested the takedown of the
| hashtag, #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide
|
| This seems reasonable.
| decadancer wrote:
| It seems reasonable to silence your political opponents on a
| 3rd party media with a force of law?
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Is it? I don't know the particulars of India's constitution
| but suppressing speech like this is generally frowned upon by
| democracies.
| alex_smart wrote:
| Both Japan and South Korea made more legal demands for
| takedown of tweets than India (with Japan making 8 times
| more takedown requests than India). Are they also not
| democracies?
|
| Source:
| https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/removal-
| requests...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Given the fact that the LDP has been ruling Japan
| nationally for essentially 50 years uninterrupted and
| every single South Korean president resigned in disgrace,
| it's a better question that one would think.
| ridiculous_leke wrote:
| India might be an exception in that case. India has strong
| hate speech laws which are routinely used against
| journalists.
| portpecos wrote:
| What's the difference between #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide
| and #StopTheSteal from a free speech perspective?
| xNeil wrote:
| My question exactly - I'd love to hear someone's take on
| this. Both are misinformation campaigns, and both result
| in violence.
|
| I don't see why Trump should be banned but accounts
| tweeting that the government is planning a genocide
| should not (be banned). I'd say both bans were fair.
| meepmorp wrote:
| I think people are wary about a government making an
| official demand that content be removed. Trump's ban was
| entirely Twitter's own decision; by contrast, the Indian
| government seeks to compel removal of material.
|
| I don't have a problem, per se, with governments having
| the ability to remove content from public platforms on
| public safety or security grounds. But the Modi
| government has also sought to remove content that's much
| less plausibly likely to inflame public violence, in
| particular related to its handling of COVID.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Plenty of democracies have stricter stances on libel, which
| such a hashtag could be argued to be
| pcmoney wrote:
| Reasonable in fascist Germany sure, on a democratic platform?
| Not so much. US companies need start saying "screw you" to
| more countries (the US included) when asked to violate their
| values. We need to be telling China to pound sand every day
| in every way we can.
| 8note wrote:
| Democratic platform? Do I get to vote on Twitter's content
| rules?
| pcmoney wrote:
| Democratic as in protected by free speech laws as it is
| incorporated in a democracy. Not socialist as in no you
| don't get a say on how a private company operates as it
| also gets the right to freedom of speech and association.
| barbazoo wrote:
| It seems that you are not quite clear about the meaning
| of those terms.
|
| > Socialism and democracy cannot be compared because it
| would just be like comparing apples to oranges since
| socialism is an economic system while democracy is a
| political ideology. An economic system defines the manner
| of producing and distributing the goods and services of
| society while a political system refers to the
| institutions that will comprise a government and how the
| system will work.
|
| http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/d
| iff...
| dmingod666 wrote:
| World war 2 ended last century around the world, and in
| some ways a little bit in the US as well, but,
| interestingly the majority of the population still is quite
| unaware of this trivia.
| pcmoney wrote:
| Germany currently has many laws restricting free speech,
| I am not sure what WW2 has to do with this debate today?
| dmingod666 wrote:
| So by fascist Germany you mean the current govt. Wow I'm
| falling behind on my current affairs. Did they really
| abandon democracy again?
| libtard323 wrote:
| Jack Dorsey is a pedophile.
| l0k3ndr wrote:
| I don't like the government, but I hate monopoly of the twitter
| ever more than I hate the existing government or their opposition
| or any coalition of them. I hate any single entity owning this
| much power. So government bending them a little is a good thing
| at least right now.
| pcmoney wrote:
| Monopoly claims need to show customer harm and an absence of
| alternatives. I don't think Twitter fits either definition as
| it has many competitors, it is free for users, and the
| advertisers are the customers and they have even more
| alternatives. Do you have data to show otherwise?
| xibalba wrote:
| By what definition is Twitter a monopoly?
| netcan wrote:
| By the commonplace colloquial definition. Economic taxonomy
| might call it an oligopsony, monopsony or whatnot.
|
| To the average person, "really big powerful company that
| stands above ordinary competition and choice dynamics,
| influences politics, dominates a business sector or other
| realm, dictates rules to a market and such."
|
| In many parts of the world, if you are a politician,
| journalist, celebrity or other public figure, twitter is
| extremely powerful... a determining factor in hundreds of
| thousands of careers. What trends on twitter trends in
| society.
|
| But no, it doesn't fit neatly into a "cornered the market for
| turnips" box.
| pcmoney wrote:
| I am somewhat confused how a middling social network of ~200M
| (generously) active users with a message limit of 280 chars has
| a lot of power? Celebrating government strong arming is an
| interesting take and only nice when its going your way.
|
| Always imagine whatever government excess you are ok with in
| this instance is now going against your position and see if you
| still like it.
| portpecos wrote:
| Perhaps you're confused, but the rest of Europe isn't
| confused at how Twitter has a lot of power:
|
| German Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to the decisions [of
| banning Trump], saying on Monday that lawmakers should set
| the rules governing free speech and not private technology
| companies.
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-
| se...
|
| Emmanuel Macron blasts social media platforms for banning
| Trump https://www.axios.com/macron-social-media-bans-trump-
| twitter...
| pcmoney wrote:
| I don't think you understand free speech in the US context,
| Twitter is protected by the first amendment, it itself has
| freedom of speech and of association. It does not have to
| allow anything it doesn't want on its platform. It could
| ban everyone wearing blue in their profile photo, it is
| THEIR platform. If Twitter COULDN'T ban anyone they wanted
| under US law THEN it would be a violation of free speech.
| hooplah wrote:
| Except the ruling that Trump could not ban people from
| his feed because it was considered an official government
| medium.
|
| I believe that's the core case that Trump's lawyers are
| making in their class action lawsuit.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-
| court-r...
|
| Also, laws can change, the government should not and can
| not delegate things to businesses things that they cannot
| do themselves.
|
| If Twitter can legally do it is one thing, should they
| morally do it?
| screye wrote:
| Twitter is in an incredibly convoluted ideological war with the
| Indian Govt.
|
| Monetarily and by pure numbers, the Indian right wing benefited
| from a new megaphone in twitter in 2014. Twitter only took notice
| of this after what they saw as the victory of a 'fascist' govt.
| (This is before twitter erupted into complete ideological
| polarization in 2016)
|
| Looking at the readiness of getting blue check marks and
| twitter's general ideological tilt, twitter employees see
| themselves as ideological warriors defending the left wing in
| India. Twitter (either due to malice or incompetence) is known to
| favor the Indian opposition through its fact checkers, whom it
| signal boosts and the kind of news that gets marked as
| 'misleading'. A lot of my rather reasonable right-leaning
| acquaintances have gotten repeatedly banned off twitter, which to
| me does point towards a strong ideological bias on the platform.
|
| Note that Twitter has only about 20 million Indians registered on
| the platform. That is a paltry sum given the size of the
| population. This means that most news about India on twitter is
| either by a very small set of west aligned Indians or folks who
| genuinely live outside India. Given that, I will entertain the
| possibility that the left wing bias of twitter is a consequence
| of the demographics who occupy it, rather than deliberate action
| by twitter. However, their actions towards the right wing in the
| US make me think otherwise.
|
| When it comes to the law itself, twitter had been non-compliant
| for a while. But, the Govt. was stuck in a catch 22. Twitter
| remained the biggest platform for Modi to reach out to a 'global'
| population. So, the ruling party still feels like Twitter
| (despite it's best efforts to the contrary) might still be a
| useful tool for their politics. This makes it hard to ban
| twitter, because Modi doesn't want to appear like an
| authoritarian to the west. (for a counterexample, tiktok was
| banned due to the lack of these complicating dynamics)
|
| Similarly for twitter, the capitalistic push is to expand further
| into India, which means expanding into a more modi-favoring and
| right-leaning population. On the other hand, the ideological push
| seems to be towards playing the martyr and getting banned in
| grand fashion with prime moral signalling in their favor.
|
| Time will tell how this pans out, but Twitter is certainly not
| acting like a savior of free speech (and probably never has).
| Similarly, the Govt. while fully lawful, is using the laws in
| ways that benefits them politically (as almost all political
| bodies do).
|
| From a legal perspective, I am glad to see Twitter comply with
| India's rules. For a while, it did seem like a foreign
| capitalistic body that was denying India's sovereignty because it
| felt it had too much leverage. At the same time, I do hope Rahul
| Gandhi falls in a ditch soon, so that the politically left bodies
| in India can elect a half decent leader who can mount a proper
| opposition instead of twiddling his thumbs on twitter.
|
| People forget that Modi is democratically elected and has allowed
| the democratic electoral process to work under his regime. I
| disagree with a lot of his policies (social and economic) but the
| electoral process shall hold him accountable. Our Supreme court
| is also independent, so any outright violation can be addressed
| by twitter in the courts. Given that, Indian laws are an entirely
| internal matter and a foreign body like Twitter should abide by
| the laws of the land.
|
| Last point: Correct me if I am wrong, but the Indian Govt. has
| yet to ask for any egregious censorship on twitter. Most cases
| are of removal of misinformation, selective use of fact checks
| and custom tags. Ofc, I am giving another perspective towards
| this issue. The rest of the comments do well to cover the rest of
| the rather valid perspectives.
| jimsimmons wrote:
| Perhaps you should think of your tilt when you see ideology in
| fact checkers
| [deleted]
| muhmuhz wrote:
| When are Dick Costolo and Jack Dorsey going to be charged for
| their pedophile crimes?
|
| When I worked at Twitter in 2013 Jack and Dick were always
| bringing in _very_ _very_ young boys and I felt extremely
| uncomfortable with it which is why I left.
|
| The entire company and diaspora is a cesspool.
| OzyM wrote:
| "The IT rules, which became effective end-May, are aimed at
| regulating content on social media and making firms act more
| swiftly on legal requests to remove posts and sharing details on
| the originators of messages. They also require the appointment of
| certain new executives."
|
| The article makes this sound like a massive detriment to free
| speech. Companies removing content on their _own_ platforms makes
| sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of
| content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer
| protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. That
| plus forcing the company to hire government-approved executives
| seems like a slippery slope.
|
| Are there any benefits to this regulation I'm overlooking?
| ikilledthecat wrote:
| As an Indian citizen I'd rather not have a shithead american
| executive lord over information flow in my country. I trust my
| govt. way more than I will ever trust a Foreign entity.
|
| Twitter should comply with Indian laws if it wants to operate
| here. It's as simple as that.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| Doesn't this just mean that you will have meddling from both
| the American executive and your government?
|
| Also I don't think anyone has advocated that Twitter should
| break the law. But surely it's fair game to discuss whether
| it's a good one.
| db1234 wrote:
| Between meddling from an American executive and Indian
| government, I would any day prefer Indian government. At
| least I have the power to vote out the government if I
| don't like its meddling.
| wittycardio wrote:
| What kind of Indian trusts their government lol
| driverdan wrote:
| > I trust my govt. way more than I will ever trust a Foreign
| entity.
|
| You trust a government that's trying to censor content they
| don't like over a company that doesn't want to censor it?
| ikilledthecat wrote:
| twitter is not censoring content?? hahaha what world are we
| living in?
| notahacker wrote:
| Twitter wasn't censoring the content the Indian
| government has introduced new laws to compel them to
| censor
| ikilledthecat wrote:
| I don't care what they were or weren't censoring. Twitter
| and other social media giants are trying to become the
| arbiters of truth in this world and control much of the
| flow of information over the internet. A foreign entity
| with no responsibilities, checks or even connection to
| the local people should not have such power imo. I look
| at twitter censoring or promoting pro/anti govt.
| hashtags/accounts as election meddling. So I'm happy that
| they're forced to have an accountable local presence.
| dmingod666 wrote:
| If you take Huawei and TikTok, would you make the same
| argument? Why trust the govt just in select cases?
| kube-system wrote:
| Those concerns _were_ about government control on speech,
| in that case, a foreign government.
| dmingod666 wrote:
| How did you reach this conclusion? Was it with the help
| of the same govt that you'd rather not trust?
| kube-system wrote:
| 1. Speech rights (or any rights) stand on their own,
| they're not predicated on trust or distrust.
|
| 2. The corporate structure of those companies is
| information that is available from sources other than the
| US government.
| bosswipe wrote:
| When Trump was trying to ban Chinese TikTok because he
| didn't like the young users making fun of him I supported
| TikTok.
|
| You have to realize that your government uses anti-
| American feelings to push their propaganda.
|
| A lot of Indians trust Twitter more than Modi, especially
| non-Hindus.
| edgyquant wrote:
| TikTok didn't end up being banned and Huawei was much
| more about national security when a foreign adversary
| controls information infrastructure (5G.) You are making
| a false equivalence.
| okt2020 wrote:
| Given our population (India) we have 3 times more shitheads
| assuming ceteris paribus. So likelihood of an Indian head who
| is a shit head is there. Compliance with local laws is well
| taken and twitter with its stupid bot storms masquerading as
| f.o.e was always asking for it.
| msravi wrote:
| > That plus forcing the company to hire government-approved
| executives
|
| Where did you get that from? Completely untrue.
|
| The new IT rules mandate the appointment of persons in certain
| executive roles, and companies, including Twitter, have the
| freedom to choose whomsoever they please, as long as he/she is
| an Indian resident - they don't have to be "government
| approved"
|
| Twitter didn't want to have a responsible officer in India. The
| managing director of Twitter India said he was only responsible
| for "marketing" and did not have control over the day-to-day
| functioning of the company.
|
| > controversial hash tag related to farmer protests
|
| It wasn't just a controversial hashtag. A farmer sped a tractor
| into a barricade causing the tractor to overturn and was
| killed. The whole thing was clearly caught on camera[1][2].
| Within minutes there were blatantly false tweets flying around
| saying that police had fired on the farmers and there was a
| genocide in progress (with an associated hashtag). Twitter
| refused to take down such blatantly false and deliberately
| incendiary tweets.
|
| Edit:
|
| 1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-
| natio...
|
| 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY
| OzyM wrote:
| I read the government's requirement of certain executive
| roles + the requirement of it being an Indian citizen as the
| government having undue control over a private (foreign)
| company's executive positions. I'm still not familiar with
| the background on the mandating of these new executive roles,
| but wanting the person overseeing implementation of your
| country's laws to be from your country at least makes sense
| to me.
|
| As far as the "controversial hash tag", that was a quote
| directly from the article. I feel like removing an entire
| hashtag related to a political position is _generally_ a bad
| idea and can silence a lot of legitimate free speech, but I
| don 't know enough on the specifics of this situation to
| apply that here.
|
| Thanks for adding more context to clear up some
| misconceptions.
| msravi wrote:
| Just to be clear, the law doesn't require that the role be
| filled by an Indian citizen. It just requires that the
| person be a resident of India.
| gruez wrote:
| >They also require the appointment of certain new executives
|
| Ah so just like china?
|
| >Now a wide range of foreign companies in China, from the
| cosmetics giant L'Oreal to Walt Disney and Dow Chemicals, all
| have party committees and display the hammer and sickle on
| their premises. In 2017, Reuters published an article that
| quoted executives from one European company saying that party
| representatives had demanded to be brought into the executive
| committee and have the business pay their expenses.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...
| TriNetra wrote:
| No. They just need to appoint any resident in India they deem
| fit for the job. As said in another commenter here, Twitter
| doesn't have any accountable person resident in the country
| to raise complaints and get clarification. But, these rules
| aren't just for Twitter but for all "significant"
| intermediaries to retain their status as such.
| jonahx wrote:
| > L'Oreal to Walt Disney and Dow Chemicals... display the
| hammer and sickle on their premises.
|
| Wow. Quoted just so others don't miss this.
|
| It was news to me.
| syshum wrote:
| Globalism is a race to the bottom when it comes to
| Individual freedom.
|
| The actions of these companies in these Authoritarian
| nations proves that despite many claiming otherwise
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is darkly funny; of course their loyalty is to money
| rather than any ideology. They'll be Communists if there's
| money in it. After all, this enhances shareholder value for
| the shareholders in the US, and isn't that the one and only
| thing that matters to a modern company? There's no risk to
| the bosses and shareholders of being expropriated.
|
| Well, unless Dow's local operations get seized ..
| natoliniak wrote:
| > Well, unless Dow's local operations get seized
|
| I think Lenin once said: The Capitalists will sell us the
| rope with which we will hang them.
|
| yep.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Not actually Lenin, but yes that's a common motif in
| Leninist thought :
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/
|
| Lenin is the one that pioneered the hybrid authoritarian
| capitalist system that China is using right now too, so
| the feeling is very appropriate.
| sudhirj wrote:
| > forcing the company to hire government-approved executives
| seems like a slippery slope.
|
| Think is this closer to the GDPR requiring the Data Protection
| Officer role. I don't it needs to be govt-approved. Not in
| favour of the overreach by the govt here, but it's not quite as
| bad as that. They want a single point of contact they can put
| pressure on.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| They want somebody they can arrest.
| sudhirj wrote:
| They can already arrest any employee, like this head of
| marketing.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| It's likely that they can't arrest someone for not doing
| something that said employees have neither the authority
| nor the ability to do nor would it help if they did. They
| wont someone in country with that power that can be held
| responsible for compliance with the Indian government.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| > Companies removing content on their own platforms makes
| sense. However, governments being able to force the removal of
| content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer
| protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good.
|
| I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of
| Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own platform
| allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own agenda.
| That allows these platforms to promote a politician that maybe
| trying to reduce corporate tax, and suppress one who is trying
| to raise it. It's bad enough these platforms are dictating
| what's a conspiracy theory or who we should listen to about
| Covid.
| kube-system wrote:
| It is bad when Twitter removes content. But I don't think
| that means it should necessarily be prohibited; compelled
| speech is also bad.
| jaywalk wrote:
| If you are a true platform, which the social media giants
| insist that they are, then it's tough to call it "compelled
| speech" when it was posted by someone who is not
| representing the company. The company is not the one saying
| it, despite it being hosted by them.
| kube-system wrote:
| It doesn't have to be a first-party statement to be
| considered "compelled speech".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co.
| _v....
|
| It is pretty reasonable for conversations to have
| moderation, just as private groups can do in person, and
| as publications have editors.
|
| It is not yet clear how social media fits into the
| platform/publisher/utility/whatever debate, but I'm just
| saying that we should be careful. Whatever we decide
| applies to Facebook/Twitter now will apply to some other
| company you or I create in the next decade.
| jaywalk wrote:
| To me, there are two aspects of that ruling you cited
| which make it entirely different from social media:
|
| 1. "newspapers are economically finite enterprises" -
| There is a very real cost involved with printing
| newspapers, while the cost of hosting a social media post
| is so small it's not even worth mentioning.
|
| 2. "the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected
| First Amendment activity" - Everything that goes into a
| newspaper has to pass editorial review, meaning the
| newspaper controls and is responsible for what is
| published. Social media does not have that.
| kube-system wrote:
| The cost of an online news publication is even smaller
| than a social media site, but we don't limit their speech
| further.
|
| The editorial power of social media sites is kind of
| nebulous, I guess we'll have a court case that settles
| this at some point, but I'm not so sure it's clear now.
| foxnews35hgrtyu wrote:
| What about "news" channels that do the same? This has been
| going on with Fox and others for decades. They only
| propagandize the news.
| jaywalk wrote:
| They are publishers. They exert full control over what goes
| on their air.
| setr wrote:
| I think more importantly, they're responsible for
| anything they put on the air. Twitter claims a lack of
| responsibility, yet also wants to be the final arbiter.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Fox has also claimed a lack of responsibility, saying
| they are not a news outlet but are instead an
| entertainment provider.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-
| case...
| jaywalk wrote:
| You should read past the headline. The judge's ruling
| boiled down to the fact that Tucker Carlson Tonight is an
| opinion show, not a news show, and that any statements
| should be viewed through that lens.
|
| Nobody, including Fox and Tucker Carlson himself, has
| claimed that Tucker Carlson Tonight is anything other
| than an opinion show. This is in contrast to CNN, where
| their opinion hosts actually do claim to be simply
| "reporting the news."
| devwastaken wrote:
| Government: can put you in jail, fine you, and enslave you.
|
| Corporation: can ban you from their social media platform.
|
| It's not equivalent.
| [deleted]
| edmundsauto wrote:
| It's not possible to have online communities without
| moderation. Some people can be so toxic, or say toxic things,
| that the community is harmed.
|
| I think just about anyone who ran a vBulletin forum back in
| the day understands this at an emotional level.
| driverdan wrote:
| Platforms need to moderate content or it will be 90% spam.
| OzyM wrote:
| I mean, I disagree with (some of) platforms' content removal,
| but I don't disagree with their legal right to do so.
|
| If Twitter becomes a propaganda machine deleting any tweet it
| disagrees with, I think that's shitty and if I had an account
| I'd delete it to avoid participating, but I'm not sold on why
| the government should make that _illegal_.
|
| People and private organizations currently have the right to
| propagandize in the U.S. (without explicitly calling for
| violent uprisings, etc). What's the major difference between
| Twitter moderating tweets and a privately-owned forum
| moderating comments?
| jaywalk wrote:
| > What's the major difference between Twitter moderating
| tweets and a privately-owned forum moderating comments?
|
| Reach.
| penultimatename wrote:
| Compelling counter argument.
|
| Why would the First Amendment's freedom of association
| change because a group is too large or loud in the public
| sphere?
| peytn wrote:
| Where does the First Amendment mention freedom of
| association?
| suzumer wrote:
| Freedom of speech implies freedom of association: https:/
| /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association#United_...
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _While the United States Constitution 's First Amendment
| identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the
| government, the text of the First Amendment does not make
| specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless,
| the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama
| (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part
| of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can
| engage in effective speech only when they join with
| others._
|
| from:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
| bilbo0s wrote:
| The fact that Freedom of Association is implicit in the
| First is not in question. All that's well litigated, and
| well understood.
|
| Which is why one can have country clubs with, for
| example, racial exclusivity clauses. I'm not saying a
| _like_ the idea of racial exclusivity policies. I 'm only
| saying the First clearly grants private organizations a
| right to practice racial exclusivity.
| mindslight wrote:
| The First Amendment explicitly differentiates on scale,
| as in "the people" versus "the government". When
| companies get large enough to wield power as de facto
| government, then it makes sense to demand that they too
| respect our natural rights.
| mahogany wrote:
| > When companies get large enough to wield power as de
| facto government, then it makes sense to demand that they
| too respect our natural rights.
|
| How do you encode "large enough" in the law? And are you
| suggesting Twitter is wielding power equivalent to that
| of a government?
| mindslight wrote:
| I didn't propose any specific legal encoding of "large
| enough", because yes, such a thing is hard to nail down
| and fraught with arguments.
|
| I am pointing out that if we view freedom of
| speech/association as a natural/human right, it is
| possible for entiti(es) that are not the bona fide
| "government" to be oppressing that right.
|
| This is trivially provable by interpreting any existing
| society as an anarcho-capitalist paradise where there is
| no government, just one large company you're forced to
| contract with to obtain vital necessities.
|
| For a real world example within our society, take a look
| at the list of songs censored by Clear Channel in the
| wake of September 11, 2001. There was no bona fide
| government edict declaring this, just opaque corporate
| power ultimately wielded by the same people marching us
| to war in most other forums.
| penultimatename wrote:
| I've never heard of a court ruling that construed "the
| government" in the Constitution, an amendment, or a law
| as synonymous with a private company based on size or
| power.
|
| That's a massive leap that isn't codified in law and the
| consequences of intermingling the two concepts has
| massive implications.
| mindslight wrote:
| I never said it was declared in law, nor currently
| interpreted by the courts as such. I was talking about
| what _ought to be_ , because legally analyzing "what is"
| is trivial.
|
| I don't think Twitter is to the size where it constitutes
| de facto government power (although Faceboot seems much
| closer). I'm just saying that asserting that anything
| that isn't the bona fide government cannot effectively
| oppress natural/human rights is a poor idea.
| OzyM wrote:
| So there's some popularity point where after people use a
| platform to talk enough times, the platform is no longer
| allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why?
|
| If I operate the world's biggest single-political-party
| discussion forum, is there a point where the forum is now
| legally compelled to host the other political party's
| opinions?
|
| (To be clear: I'm not saying that example is exactly
| analogous to Twitter, but I don't understand why one
| would be legally different)
| jaywalk wrote:
| > So there's some popularity point where after people use
| a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no
| longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why?
|
| That's not quite what I said, but yes, kind of. No phone
| company is allowed to moderate the speech that goes over
| their network, for example.
| OzyM wrote:
| Do you have an answer for my political-platform question?
| I feel like that'd help me understand where you're
| drawing the line here.
|
| As far as phone companies, my current understanding is
| that in the U.S., the government is involved in building
| and maintaining telecommunications infrastructure.
| Therefore it falls under the First Amendment.
|
| If you run your own wires between a lot of houses to let
| people talk to each other, and then listen into every
| conversation and cut off ones you don't like, that
| doesn't seem illegal.
|
| Things like Discord or Slack, for instance, should
| _legally_ be able to moderate anything you send through
| them. Though it would be financial suicide to actually do
| so.
|
| [Disclaimer here that I only have a vague understanding
| of telecommunications infrastructure]
| jaywalk wrote:
| My line is pretty simple: if there's a clear purpose for
| the platform or even a part of it, then you have every
| right to remove content that deviates from that purpose.
| So I would say that your political platform should not be
| forced to host content supporting any other party. Of
| course it would still have to follow campaign finance
| laws and things like that, but that's a whole different
| ball of wax.
|
| Social media platforms are content-neutral. They _want_
| to be treated like the "public square" because a lot of
| benefits come along with that. But then at the same time,
| they censor content that they disagree with. That's where
| it crosses the line. If Twitter came out tomorrow and
| declared that they are officially a left-wing social
| network and updated their rules to reflect that, then I'd
| have no problem with them kicking every Republican off
| the platform and banning every person who complained
| about taxes being too high. But Twitter won't do that.
|
| I don't want to get further off on the tangent about
| telecommunications infrastructure, so I'll just leave
| that alone.
| OzyM wrote:
| I disagree, in that I think any privately-owned platform
| that people voluntarily use, have easy alternatives to,
| and can leave without consequence has the right to
| moderate the content on their platform as they see fit.
|
| That being said, after having a political/ideological
| group I really liked removed off a major platform (that
| it followed the ToS of) without analogous opposite-side
| groups being removed, I'm at least very sympathetic to
| your position. I thing we both agree that harmless
| differences of opinion shouldn't be removed, but I'll
| agree to disagree on whether the law should be involved.
| adventured wrote:
| > So there's some popularity point where after people use
| a platform to talk enough times, the platform is no
| longer allowed to moderate the speech on it? Why?
|
| Yes, such a point exists. If you have a monopoly, for
| instance, then you should be subject to very different
| considerations. If you possess a monopoly on a
| discussion/communication platform so massive that it has
| become very important to societal communication and
| reach, then your ability to do what you want in terms of
| censoring content, should be curtailed in the favor of
| promoting free speech rather than the opposite. Meaning
| even if the monopolist wants to pursue their own
| political agenda and censor speech, they are barred from
| doing so. That is the price a corporation should pay for
| owning such an important platform, their responsibility
| should be greater, their freedom of action should be
| restricted more. You may be allowed to sell ads in that
| important quasi-public square, however you should not be
| allowed to restrict human rights in the square.
|
| It is said, frequently and incorrectly, that only the
| government has the ability to censor. That's not correct.
| A monopoly, well positioned, can accomplish an identical
| outcome: it can restrict your voice in very comprehensive
| ways, including up to the point of literally denying you
| access to the Internet.
|
| And a group of monopolies that conspire together in
| pursuit of a political agenda, well it's just that much
| worse.
|
| Facebook (taking into account Facebook core + Instagram +
| WhatsApp) has a social media monopoly position, or
| something very close to it. They shouldn't get the same
| regulatory consideration as a modest sized political
| forum with 5,000 members.
|
| YouTube has a monopoly in its consumer-upload streaming
| video segment. It's drastically larger than its
| comparable peers. Vimeo (who is #2 or #3 these days? I
| have no idea) should not get the same treatment as
| YouTube.
|
| Google has a monopoly over search. It should not get the
| same treatment as DuckDuckGo.
|
| Amazon (as with Walmart), should not get the same
| regulatory treatment as Joe's little corner grocer.
|
| Twitter for its part, clearly doesn't have such a
| monopoly, even though it does have a massive, potent
| platform.
|
| AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile shouldn't be allowed to block
| your access to a phone account/number, and shouldn't be
| allowed to censor your calls. For exactly the same reason
| Facebook shouldn't be allowed to deplatform you.
|
| I think it's very clear we're going that direction, there
| is no scenario where the biggest platforms escape being
| regulated in terms of their ability to censor and
| deplatform. If it has to be done at the state level to
| start, it will be.
| OzyM wrote:
| Thanks for the thoughtful response.
|
| I agree that if one company is the only feasible option -
| a true monopoly - there should be controls on their
| power.
|
| However, I'm not convinced why any social media would
| fall under this umbrella at the moment. Facebook(&
| related) hardly have a stranglehold on the market, at
| least from the point of view of it being in competition
| with other social media platforms such as Twitter,
| Reddit, Tumblr, etc. All of their products are slightly
| different, but generally are grouped under the same
| niche. If Facebook decided tomorrow that half of the
| political spectrum was completely barred from discussion,
| I assume people would just successfully migrate off
| Facebook (in a way they could not do if their government
| banned their opinion, or if the _only_ place they could
| discuss on the internet banned their opinion).
|
| Afaik phone numbers are a completely different
| discussion, as I believe the government is involved in
| creating and maintaining phone networks (placing it under
| the First Amendement).
|
| You make a good point about something like YouTube,
| though. YouTube is the one on your list which most
| clearly has control over its market, so I could see the
| argument for oversight there.
|
| This is a great comment, and definitely food for thought.
| I'll use this to examine my own beliefs -- much
| appreciated.
| wavefunction wrote:
| If the argument is that facebook is too big to be regulated
| by anyone, even facebook, then it's time to break it down
| into smaller and more manageable parts.
| [deleted]
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Companies removing content on their own platforms makes
| sense. However, governments being able to force the removal
| of content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to
| farmer protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be
| good.
|
| > I disagree. Both are bad. When you grow to the size of
| Facebook, Twitter, etc. Removing content from your own
| platform allows you to spread propaganda that meets your own
| agenda. That allows these platforms to promote a politician
| that maybe trying to reduce corporate tax, and suppress one
| who is trying to raise it. It's bad enough these platforms
| are dictating what's a conspiracy theory or who we should
| listen to about Covid.
|
| Kinda sorta. There are actually two separate but related
| problems. It makes sense for private parties to be able to
| remove content on their own platforms, BUT that also becomes
| an issue _if_ those platforms are able become as dominant
| "one stop shops" like Facebook or Google. So the real problem
| is figuring out how to break up the over-dominant platforms.
| dmingod666 wrote:
| Countries implementing rules in their _own_ countries on
| business that earn profits from those countries, shocking.
| justicezyx wrote:
| This seems pretty much the same as Chinese law which requires
| publisher verify the sources. I dont know what exactly to make
| of it. But I think it probably makes sense from the
| government's perspective.
| gremloni wrote:
| I wish the far right hadn't poisoned the free speech well. I
| genuinely blame them for people being mostly okay with
| censorship on this scale.
| vowelless wrote:
| The benefit is complying with local laws. Not all countries
| have "first amendment style free speech". Note the speech
| restrictions in the Indian constitution:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India
|
| The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the
| sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban
| those kinds of hastags.
|
| FWIW, the American government also requests removals from
| social media sites.
|
| Edit: perhaps this comment is unnecessarily controversial /
| inflammatory. I just wanted to suggest that there are other
| interpretations of free speech law and that it makes sense for
| a corporation to comply with those laws if they want to operate
| in those countries. I personally dont agree with those laws,
| which is why I fortunately moved to the US.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the
| sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to
| ban those kinds of hastags.
|
| Why? How does a hashtag impact a country's sovereignty or
| security?
|
| Edit: am I missing /s here?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The reasoning is that organizing for stuff like the
| farmers' strike or generally opposing Modi's politics
| threatens the security of India by... well, being critical
| of the government's actions.
| [deleted]
| rishav_sharan wrote:
| It shows our Dear Leader in poor light and is thus
| something only anti nationals would do. Dissent is the
| biggest threat to India's sovereignty and free thought to
| its security.
| [deleted]
| mullen wrote:
| > FWIW, the American government also requests removals from
| social media sites.
|
| No, they don't. Any American Government official requesting a
| removal of anything from social media sites would probably
| lose their job. That's saying a lot because American
| Government officials rarely ever lose their jobs.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Any American Government official requesting a removal of
| anything from social media sites would probably lose their
| job
|
| You missed FOSTA/SESTA then? That forced the removal of
| anything that even looks vaguely like sex work from social
| media.
| 1024core wrote:
| Crickets... no answer.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Everybody answering this with examples of Congresspeople is
| clearly missing that elected officials _can 't_ lose their
| jobs. You have to vote them out of office. It's why
| politicians can get away with saying and doing way more
| outrageous things than any ordinary employee, and arguably
| can just flat-out break the law in many cases if the rest
| of the government refuses to enforce laws against their own
| party members, claiming all attempts at enforcement action
| to be politically motivated from the other side.
|
| An actual civil servant enjoys no such impunity from normal
| rules of conduct.
| codeecan wrote:
| Then why is Pelosi still employed?
| https://sputniknews.com/world/202002081078259986-facebook-
| tw...
|
| Twitter declined this time, but I have a hard time
| believing the Democrats had no hand in twitter blocking the
| Biden laptop story or removing Trump from the platform
| oneplane wrote:
| Yes they do. Not personally, but they do. The amount of
| child exploitation that falls through the filters is not
| zero, and sometimes the government of the US intervenes and
| asks for the content to be removed.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Removing that kind of illegal content by the police is
| 100% different from political officials asking to have
| content critical of the gov't removed.
| alex_smart wrote:
| The point is that India is a sovereign republic and has
| its own laws about what is illegal and is not. According
| to India's laws, spreading false rumours about the police
| shooting a farmer when there is clear evidence that the
| person actually died by running his tractor into a
| barricade is illegal. And when Twitter failed to comply
| with government's orders to remove these tweets, they
| didn't have any point of contact from the company they
| could turn to for accountability. That's why the need for
| the compliance officer.
|
| Also, criticizing the government is not illegal according
| to Indian laws.
| bosswipe wrote:
| Who determines that their is "clear evidence". Shouldn't
| a judge be involved?
| alex_smart wrote:
| >Who determines that their is "clear evidence".
|
| In this case, anyone with an eye.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgSLaOMEzHY
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| ok, so removal of obvious illegal content like child
| exploitation is not equivilent to removal of content like
| "I don't agree with your political view" -- which is
| basically IMHO what this hashtag thing in india amounts
| to...?
| alex_smart wrote:
| > "I don't agree with your political view" > which is
| basically IMHO what this hashtag thing in india amounts
| to...?
|
| No, it doesn't. The tweets under that hashtag were
| spreading a false rumour that the police had shot at a
| farmer when there was a CCTV footage showing clearly that
| the said person had died in an accident caused by him
| running his tractor into a barricade.
|
| I don't quite understand this need to quickly pass
| judgements on complex politics of a different country,
| without spending the minimum required time and effort to
| familiarize yourself with the topic.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| You don't think the US can have things removed from social
| networks for "national security" reasons?
| echelon wrote:
| Probably not. First Amendment and Streisand Effect.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-
| webs...
|
| Amazon was pressured to stop hosting Wikileaks.
| vowelless wrote:
| I thought that there was American government pressure to
| remove Al Qaeda/ISIS propaganda from social media sites. If
| not, then I hope the american gov takes a stronger stance
| against terrorism.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| You mean like when AOC asked Google and Apple to ban Parler
| and they complied?
| penultimatename wrote:
| I'm sure AOC's demand was critical in their decision to
| ban such a vibrant, positive application.
| portpecos wrote:
| Ignoratio Elenchi: refuting an opponent while actually
| disproving something not asserted.
|
| Your opponent was elaborating on the original claim that
| "If any American Government official requesting a removal
| of anything from social media sites would probably lose
| their job", then "AOC should also lose her job when she
| requested removal of Parler"
|
| Your counter argument, "I'm sure AOC's demand was
| critical in their decision to ban such a vibrant,
| positive application" is an unfair redirection of what
| your opponent was asserting.
| rishav_sharan wrote:
| > The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the
| sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to
| ban those kinds of hastags.
|
| Thats a fairly nonsensical claim. Are you planning back it up
| with more details/sources?
|
| Because if we are just making sentences on the fly, IMO, this
| BJP regime has been allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty
| and security of India.
| xNeil wrote:
| The hashtags insinuated the government was planning a
| farmer genocide.
|
| Source: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-
| nation/govt-se...
| rishav_sharan wrote:
| How is that a threat to India's sovereignty or security?
| Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or
| inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people.
| Hell, he was even banned from entering the US, till he
| became the Indian PM. There is blood on his hands and
| lots of it.
|
| And to give some context on this hash tag, I believe it
| came after the gov't put across barricades and barbed
| wires to caroll the protesters leading many to believe
| that the regime was planning a major crackdown. The
| situation in the first week of Feb was very tense.
|
| https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/iron-spikes-
| bar...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754
| nsenifty wrote:
| > The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense.
|
| Wasn't it partly due to the genocide misinformation? One
| protestor died in a tractor accident and Twitter did
| little to curb the misinformation that he was shot by
| police.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| God help us if WhatsApp ever decides to curb BJP
| misinformation. Are the cops in UP going to make BJP WA
| group admins register like in Kashmir?
| 1024core wrote:
| > Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or
| inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people.
|
| An accusation for which he was acquitted by the Supreme
| Court of India.
|
| And Modi's actions/inactions pale in comparison to those
| of the Congress Party, who actually committed genocide
| against the Sikhs in 1984, which resulted in up to 17,000
| Sikhs getting murdered by Congress goons, for which noone
| has been held accountable.
| portpecos wrote:
| >I believe it came after the gov't put across barricades
| and barbed wires to caroll the protesters leading many to
| believe that the regime was planning a major crackdown.
|
| Didn't the US also place barricades for Biden's
| inauguration?
|
| I'm noticing a pattern here:
|
| People, who deem it "good" that the US places barricades
| to corral protesters of the biden inauguration, are the
| same people inclined to deem it "bad" that India places
| barricades to corral protesters of the farm bills.
|
| Similarly, people who deem it "good" that Twitter
| deplatforms #StopTheSteal are inclined to deem it "bad"
| that Twitter deplatforms #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| because now it will be harder to do the actual genocide
| without someone saying "hey, see! I told you so..."
| bosswipe wrote:
| Be careful what you say or Modi will demand that Hacker
| News hire a local Indian censor.
| ridiculous_leke wrote:
| Claiming that the Prime minster is genociding farmers in
| a country of more than 100 million farmers certainly
| sounds worrisome. India's sovereignty is in good hands so
| I am not worried about that. But the same cannot be said
| for internal security. Government treating the protestors
| unfairly is no justification for spreading news that is
| clearly fake. To add more context, fake news has led to
| riots, murders and even incidents of mob lynching in the
| country.
| OzyM wrote:
| Super interesting Wikipedia article, thanks for the link!
| Some of the restrictions on free speech make me instinctually
| uncomfortable (i.e. restrictions for the sake of "decency and
| morality"), but I recognize these are hardly unique to India
| and countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books,
| etc. in the past.
|
| I'm not sure that I personally am in favor. However, you're
| clearly right in that it's hardly unprecedented or unique.
| xxpor wrote:
| >countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books,
| etc. in the past.
|
| The modern interpretation of the 1st amendment as being
| fairly absolute is only 50-100 years old. Don't forget the
| federal government had political prisoners for protesting
| against the US getting involved in WW 1, and the HUAC and
| McCarthy hearings were blatantly unconstitutional under
| modern jurisprudence.
|
| We don't even need to talk about the Alien and Sedition
| acts, passed right after the 1st amendment was ratified!
| pjc50 wrote:
| Or the Comstock acts. At one point it was illegal to
| distribute information on contraception. https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#State_laws_on_bi....
| jbishop156 wrote:
| That's true. It did take the US 200 years to come to the
| _correct_ interpretation of First Amendment being damn
| near absolute. Shameful as that delay was, we progressed
| in the right direction.
| 1024core wrote:
| Take a look at this, and tell me Twitter is not biased. The
| rules are to prevent such bullshit.
|
| https://twitter.com/truth_recipe/status/1411234708814323712
| cyanydeez wrote:
| less free range propaganda.
| dartharva wrote:
| >However, governments being able to force the removal of
| content (such as a "controversial hash tag related to farmer
| protests against new agricultural reforms") can't be good. That
| plus forcing the company to hire government-approved executives
| seems like a slippery slope.
|
| Most governments (including India's) already have the power to
| make Twitter and other sites censor content. The requirement
| for a local compliance officer comes from the fact that
| Twitter's India branch has literally no direct control over the
| content on its platform and is mostly here to sell
| advertisements and look over marketing.
| kjs3 wrote:
| The requirement for a local compliance officer comes from the
| desire to have someone associated directly with the company
| to lean on/harass/put in jail if the parent company doesn't
| comply with local government desires. Lots of countries have
| such a requirement.
| tw600040 wrote:
| Hypothetically speaking, what if the said company acts with
| ulterior motives, is blatantly anti national, blatantly trying
| to interfere in elections, cause riots etc. What should a
| responsible government do then? Hypothetically.
| OzyM wrote:
| Ulterior motives, anti national -> (personally) this seems
| like free speech. I don't have to like it to think it should
| be legal.
|
| Blatantly trying to interfere with elections -> if you mean
| by spreading opinions / propaganda, this seems generally
| under the realm of free speech. The government being able to
| silence opinions that disagree with it generally seems much
| more problematic than civilians being able to spread bad
| opinions
|
| Cause riots -> Again, I think opinions should be legal.
| However, saying "hey y'all let's get guns and actively
| participate in violence" is not protected under free speech
| in any country I'm aware of, but is also not really my major
| concern with this legislation.
| jatins wrote:
| Filling the Chief Compliance Officer role is going to be
| extremely tricky. Not just because you are now liable for any
| content government considers objectionable (and this government
| is considers _a lot_ objectionable -- they recently arrested
| people for putting posters questioning government's vaccine
| export when we had shortage inside the country itself) but also
| because this puts that person at tremendous mental/physical risk.
| The government's IT cell will be the first one to trend #BoycottX
| when they don't agree with any of your decision.
|
| Can't imagine someone taking up this role unless they are paid
| truckload of money.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| India is a big country with many ambitious people. Doubt
| Twitter will ever have a problem finding someone to fill the
| role, even if they're little more than a designated patsy.
| sudhirj wrote:
| Finding a scapegoat has never been a problem in any culture or
| time in history, as long as the role was compensated properly.
| perihelions wrote:
| Buried in the last paragraph:
|
| > _" Police in two Indian states have named Twitter India boss
| Manish Maheshwari in complaints. The state of Uttar Pradesh has
| challenged in the Supreme Court a bar on police action against
| Maheshwari, after a lower court protected him against arrest over
| an accusation that the platform was used to spread hate."_
|
| Really wondering why Twitter is continuing its presence in a
| country where its employees are criminally prosecuted, merely for
| being Twitter employees.
| [deleted]
| dartharva wrote:
| It's even more ridiculous when you realize Twitter's India unit
| (and Maheshwari) is only there to sell ads and do marketing. It
| really has no control over the content you see on Twitter's
| apps and websites.
| ridiculous_leke wrote:
| > Really wondering why Twitter is continuing its presence in a
| country where its employees are criminally prosecuted, merely
| for being Twitter employees.
|
| Revenue and Profits. Just look up how much Twitter India made
| last quarter. The figures are not insignificant.
| alex_smart wrote:
| USA has the ability to make Zuckerberg face a panel when they
| have some problems with the way Facebook has been functioning,
| India doesn't. I am sure they would have been happier to summon
| Jack Dorsey instead, but he would probably not feel any
| obligation to appear before an Indian court/panel.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| The answer to your final question is almost always money. The
| English-speaking upper echelons of Indian society are a
| significant presence on the internet.
|
| What is intriguing is the fact that twitter in India is
| dominated by the elites or those at the top of the wealth
| pyramid i.e. the richest 5% of the population. These people
| have tremendous power in Indian society and hence their current
| right-wing regime is paranoid about this section being publicly
| critical of the government via twitter.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Why wouldn't Twitter trade their employees for money? There's
| no shortage of potential employees in India to replace any that
| the police might arrest. As long as it's the employees
| suffering most of the consequences while Twitter receives most
| of the benefits, they're going to do what all profit first
| entities would do and let the employees suffer.
| fukd wrote:
| As a saying goes here tongue has no bones which means people can
| and will lie eaily.
|
| That being said as son of a farmer i will support the government
| actions. period.
|
| A company's solo responsibity is making money for its
| shareholders so no thanks corporations, please take your business
| elsewhere if you dont like our laws.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-08 23:02 UTC)