shripadk

"The number beats the previous record of 104 satellites carried aloft by an Indian vehicle in 2017"

Does this vehicle not have a name? Or is the reporter too lazy to look it up? BBC never fails when it comes to its Anti-India stance.

So because you were not compensated properly you decided to screw the users of your company who had nothing to do with you being compensated less. You act like you are some kind of martyr but you are the sole person responsible for the human rights violations of thousands and potentially millions of unsuspecting users who used that service. I hope you can sleep well tonight knowing how you deliberately violated privacy and rights of people unconnected with your compensation issue. If you were treated unfairly you should have resigned. Not fuck the company over.

Thank you for speaking out in this charged climate. You could have chosen to keep silent but you chose not to. So thank you.

Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified

Not justified at all. Nothing can justify censoring a sitting President and destroying a small competitor. America is on the wrong path. This I say as a observer of American politics. Big Tech has too much power in its hands now.

I'm the child of indian immigrants. My parents adored trump in 2016, I was meh because all my friends told me he was a white supremacist. I thought my parents had gone mad. But then I saw that nothing my friends claimed actually came true and in fact trump governed like any other republican but way better because he didn't exclude people due to culture war issues and he didn't warmonger and brought peace.

Exactly right. Thanks for keeping an open mind and not getting caught up in this frenzy of opposing Trump just for the heck of it. I can understand how hard it is to be in America right now and be a Trump supporter.

But what really redpilled me was the impeachment farce where he literally was impeached for investigating his predecessor for crimes we now know occurred. That sends a very chilling message.

Spot on.

exercises restraint on its immense natural power

I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint.

This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure.

It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.

Exactly. Thanks for getting my point. Let us assume that the entire US Capitol plot was hatched in Parler. Even then that is just 1 transgression. Compare it to the history of social media enabling violence and that list runs into hundreds if not thousands (if you factor in the entire World). I haven't even covered threats of school shootings and other stuff that often gets overlooked.

When regime change happens in Middle Eastern countries Twitter was lauded for being a platform for voice of the oppressed. As long as it doesn't happen in America we should rejoice social media playing a pivotal role. The moment the same "Arab Spring" like situation strikes home all hell breaks loose.

WhatsApp won't be able to do anything about it. Even with publishing full page ads. It is just a big waste of money. I have had so many of my relatives and friends move to Signal already. Big Tech companies haven't yet understood Indian psyche. If we make a move it will be en masse. So never antagonise Indians. Just see what happened to Tik Tok. The next big movement would be from Twitter if Twitter doesn't fix its ridiculous ideological censorship policies.

Why stop there? I'll add more to the list of Parler transgressions:

1. They live streamed NZ Mosque Shooter. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/444349-christchurch-shoote...

2. They helped ISIS in propagating terror material for 2 full years. They allowed ISIS to post beheading videos and threaten the then President of the United States Barack Obama. They even got sued for it but took protection behind Section 230: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-isis-lawsuit-idUS... and https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/20/technology/twitter-facebook... and https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/war-goe...

3. It was used to incite Genocide of an ethnic group causing mass migrations: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

4. They were party to toppling of foreign Governments: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/can-social-networking-over...

5. They were used by foreign Governments to censor Citizens and Oppositon: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/16/it-exists-to-demobi...

They banned themselves.

Oh yes they banned themselves. The proof I have given above validates your point. I am wrong, you are right! Congratulations!

It's not just as simple as you make it sound. What this Censorship has done is conveyed to the World that American Government cannot be trusted. That America has 2 power centers not 1. The two power centers being American Government and Big Tech.

Any ban or removal should come from the elected Government. In this case it is the US Congress. This is what the World expects as this is how all Democratically elected Governments all over the World function. It is the Government which has a final say.

Now when Big Tech unilaterally decides to censor a sitting US President and bans a rival competitor this will cause every World leader and Government to sit up and take note. Everyone will ask themselves: are we now supposed to trust US Government for its word? What if tomorrow a private company decides to censor the US Government? If they can ban the US President's account they wield more power than even elected representatives. Why then should we liaison with US Government and why not directly talk to Big Tech as they seem to hold the power over even the US President.

Then it goes further than that: how do we trust that the incoming President won't be censored? Since all communications happen through a digital forum where one of the Big Tech companies is an intermediary in relaying such communications what is the guarantee that the communication is not tampered with? When Big Tech enjoys so much power in US, that it can censor the Government itself, then why can't this also be possible? If Big Tech can attach disclaimers to a sitting US President's content then why can't they tamper with the messaging too?

This sort of confusion existed for countries like Pakistan which has dual power centers: the elected Government and the military. You won't know whom to talk to as one can override the other. Which is why you have so many successful coups in Pakistan. What Big Tech has done is set a very dangerous precedent. Now no World leader will trust the word of the American Government at face value and will double/triple check every communication.

That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media.

The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications?

Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.

encourage competition through enforcing open standards

Big Tech destroyed this hope the moment it banned Parler and everyone cheered this ideological censorship.

Big Tech crossed every line in launching a coordinated attack on a rival. The damage this has done cannot be quantified. The ideal way to have gone about this is involvement of Courts/Legislature to decide if Parler should be banned or not. Not a group of private companies deciding to fuck a competitor. It is a horrible horrible precedent which has absolutely zero excuses.

I haven't seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites! Lost all respect for US after seeing how it embraced Censorship as a way to resolve issues. America the "land of the free". Yeah right!

I don't find his policies extremist. On the contrary I feel he did more for minority upliftment than any other US President in modern times.

I have always supported Trump over here when no one was coming out in his support. Got down voted heavily too. You can see my comments to know where I stand on this. In fact, he is the least extreme US President I have seen till date.

No matter what the majority thinks I have personally looked into policies that Trump has gotten pushed either through his executive orders or through the Congress and every single policy I have agreed to. I'm not even an American. I'm an Indian. Trump has targeted India when it comes to trade and imposed tariffs. Quite frankly I feel he was completely in the right for doing so. The deficit between our countries was too huge in terms of trade and it needed to be balanced out. There is a time and place for jingoism but not when truth is staring in your face. So you'll find more people in India pro-Trump than you'll find even in America perhaps. We can't forget his help in making sure China comes around and removed the block on UN sanctions against terrorist Maulana Masood Azhar. Obama couldn't get it done as China never took him seriously. Trump got it done. You can read more about it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/intern...

But I would definitely call the ones who stormed US Capitol as insurrectionists. There is no excuse for that behaviour. If at all, it damaged Trump more than it helped him. I mean the entire premise of Trump supporters being different from left-wing supporters was one knows to protest peacefully while the other indulges in riots and arson. I was extremely disappointed when I saw it go out of hand at the US Capitol. This is not what I expected. But nevertheless it happened and cannot be reversed.

Exactly! We were told that we are going to experience fascism for 4 years. In all of these 4 years the press was given so much freedom to say whatever it wants and publish whatever it wants on a sitting US President. I don't think Putin or Xi would have been kind to the press if they were ever treated the way Trump was treated. The journalists along with the media organisations would have disappeared overnight!

Yet here we are. In a purely fascist Censorship overdrive. And everyone is cheering it! The attack on US Capitol pales in comparison to what has happened now. This is far more damaging to USA than some bunch of idiotic insurrectionists who thought they'll be able to take over the US Capitol.

I can't count the number of times Twitter and Facebook have been used for hatching/plotting terror attacks. No one banned these social media giants for failure to police their own sites. Was Facebook banned after the NZ Mosque shooter live streamed entire shooting spree? Was Twitter banned after it allowed ISIS to operate on its site with impunity for 2 years by posting propaganda and beheading videos? These are just few examples of plenty of examples of violence propagated on these sites. Yet they are given a free pass. Parler on the other hand had to face the consequences.

I'm a 90s kid. From India. Always called it Telephone Directory. We also called it Yellow Pages.

If it is an extremist thought it is better to know who is saying what than cutting off communication completely and hoping the problem goes away. But this has to go along with society coming together and addressing the problem firsthand. Is the extremist thought because of a mental illness? Is it some monetary issue driving such thoughts? Is it social issues that is driving such thoughts? Is it religion? The thoughts by themselves are immaterial unless the individual is a psychopath. Many turn extremist because of an underlying cause which I call the "root cause". Attack the root cause. That'll fix the person. For how long will society keep ignoring this aspect of human beings? Unless you dedicate funding towards tackling such issues you'll get to no where. By shutting off communications you haven't shut off these thoughts that crop up in an extremists mind. Al Qaeda existed before internet was even a thing. We have had genocides when technology did not exist. All throughout human history. It always has been bloody. On the contrary, I can argue that we are at a much better place than we were in the past many thousand years. So to only blame technology for spread of misinformation is disingenuous. Before technology existed misinformation spread rapidly through word of mouth but there was no way to cross check it. Today you have that ability to cross verify. You just need to give time to people to get used to this.

But once you introduce Censorship there is no turning back. Once authority tastes power they'll want to keep using it more and more. Just like Surveillance, Censorship will become a powerful tool in the hands of the powerful. It always starts with a valid justification.

But for example what about hate speech or holocaust denial? Neither is illegal in the US. Would Twitter be legally required to host content inciting racial hatred on their site even if they don't want to? Would it be illegal for Twitter to show any posts made by users in the United States to users who are in the UK or Germany (if the content is ambiguous I don't see how they could determine whether it's illegal in the target court without requesting it's courts to review it)?

Yes. If hate speech or holocaust denial is not illegal then Twitter is legally required to host such content. If you strongly feel this should not be the case then take the help of your representatives and codify it into law. Then Twitter will be forced to take it down.

Let me ask a counter question. There are countries where blasphemy is illegal and attracts a death sentence. In America you can get away with criticizing a religion. You can't do that in say Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Now, what should Twitter/Facebook do? Should it ban such content or keep such content? If you are a US citizen and indulge in blasphemy of a religion, will your post be shown to a Pakistani or should it not be shown?

Would it be illegal for Twitter to show any posts made by users in the United States to users who are in the UK or Germany (if the content is ambiguous I don't see how they could determine whether it's illegal in the target court without requesting it's courts to review it)?

Yes it would be illegal for Twitter to show posts by users in US to users in UK and Germany if content is illegal. If content is ambiguous they can always decide to keep the content up and get a court review on the content. It isn't that hard to determine if content is illegal or not. They already have tools that flag such content. The only difference would be that they would first check if the content is actually violating any policies before removing it rather than just blanket removing it and making the user go through an appeals process. The worst part of the automated system that they have as of now removes a lot of false positive posts for hate speech while refusing to remove actual offending accounts. They are heavily reliant on algorithms that have a 40-50% success rate.

If the content is not explicit and open to interpretation can Twitter just declare that it's illegal and remove it?

If content is not explicit and open to interpretation Twitter can decide not to do anything with it until a court order is produced to take it down. Section 230 and similar regulations give Twitter that protection from being liable. Twitter is not a judge. It can always ask you to get a court order for removal of that offending content and Twitter will happily remove it.

In fact this is not something alien to Big Tech. Do you know that you can request removal of content from Google SERPs indexed by other websites? Google asks for a court order for the same. If it is your content Google will happily remove it. For removing another user's content a court order is required if the content is open to interpretation and Google cannot decide if it is illegal or not.

Google form to legally remove content from Google Search Index that you don't own: https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905#ts=9...

Let me ask you another question:

Can we have a court system which only looks at issues related to social media and fast track such cases (like in Poland where you get a verdict in 7 days time)? Every country can have one. Just like we have international laws that every country ratifies, we can have countries ratify a court system that only fast tracks cases pertaining to online abuse/hate speech/violations etc. The court in each country is setup according to the Constitution of that country.

All social media companies forward complaints to that court through an API. The court is the final arbiter. If it is a criminal case the court forwards it to a criminal court. If it is a civil case the court forwards it to a civil court. If it feels it can resolve the case on their own they'll resolve it. Any verdict is passed back to the social media companies through an API call as well. That way all social media companies don't have to rely on creating their own rules and regulations and setting up support teams to handle such cases and instead offload that job to this special court system. Users are happy too as they won't be confused about conflicting rules and regulations. A user will know his own country's laws better than rules and regulations of a tech site online. It makes matters worse if he is signed up with dozens of services (which is the norm today) and has to remember rules in all services. It is too much to ask for from a user. Every citizen of every country has sworn allegiance to his/her own Constitution. Following the rules/regulations laid down in that Constitution is more than sufficient. Why should citizens be expected to learn rules set by private companies that are by themselves ephemeral?

So if someone in (for example) Thailand posts something negative about Thailand's king Twitter would be required to remove that post, while if someone in the US does that they would take no action. Do you really think this is a good idea?

It already is happening that way. What is GDPR then? As a European citizen you can ask for removal of content about you while a US Citizen or an Indian Citizen doesn't have that right (not yet atleast). Another example: I am from India. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Now in Google Maps you'll see it as part of India if you are in India. But the moment you travel out of India, Jammu and Kashmir is shown as disputed territory between India, Pakistan and China. If you land in China a portion of Ladakh is shown as part of China (Aksai Chin). If you land in Pakistan a portion of Kashmir is shown as part of Pakistan. This is because all 3 countries claim the territory to be theirs. So if you display the territory as disputed in India you are in violation of our Constitution and will attract huge fines and can even be barred from setting up a company in India ever again.

These peculiarities always existed from many years. It is not new for social media platforms to regulate such things. They have already been doing it. It is far easier to regulate these small issues than regulate the entire social network. When you do the latter scope for getting it wrong is way higher than scope for getting it right.

Twitter can't decide what is illegal only a court can do that. Irregardless of how clear the law is, there will have to be an appeal process and anyone unhappy with Twitter's moderation...

Why can't Twitter decide? They can decide. They already do it for illegal content. If you upload child porn or threaten someone with murder it becomes illegal and Twitter will remove it either automatically or when reported. That won't change. You can drag Twitter to court but you will lose in the first hearing itself when evidence is presented. In fact you'll be setting yourself up for prison time by voluntarily implicating yourself. That is why having it codified as a Law is so much more effective. There is no scope for ambiguity. And it's not easy to file a court case. You have to pay lawyer fees, you'll have to pay court fees at the very minimum. No one in the right frame of mind will needlessly move court over a tweet they put out which even they know is illegal. In fact, Twitter can be dragged to court if what they banned wasn't illegal. That gives more power to users and counter balances the Section 230 power that social media companies enjoy.

All Big Tech censorship related posts have been pushed to the 4th page on Hacker News. Even if it has more upvotes than many items on the front page. Even Hacker News is in on this censorship.

This is the exact thing a fascist would say. A liberal would never say this. If you want to censor someone's speech just because you don't agree with them, congratulations you are already a fascist.

Exactly right. There are already properly defined rules and regulations in the Constitution of every country. These rules and regulations have been implemented by elected representatives of the people of those countries. If there is anything lacking it should be done through legislation legally. Not through private companies deciding on their own whims and fancies.

Which is why GDPR exists isn't it? Every country can frame it's own rules. Private companies must abide by those rules. Neither should they be allowed to create rules for their platforms beyond what is defined in the Constitution of the countries they operate in. Restricting speech by private companies must be made illegal. If someone says or does something wrong on social media there is recourse for it already defined by the law. Any content removal should be in the hands of the users of the platform (similar to GDPR) or the elected Government. Private companies must only be allowed to remove content that has been explicitly defined as illegal in the constitution of the particular country.

For everything else they can enjoy immunity from being liable for whatever is posted on their platform. Liability is always with the end user of their services. That way, there won't be any extra burden on these private companies to moderate content.

You aren't getting it. Free speech and subsequent limitations of such free speech must and must be decided by elected representatives. Not by private companies.

In this case Germany has every damn right to frame such laws. They are a Sovereign Nation. The people of Germany have empowered their Government through their constitution.

Twitter/Facebook/Google et all are not Sovereign States. They haven't been elected by anyone. Their rules cannot override the laws of the State. They cannot frame rules that go against the laws of the State. They have to work within the ambit of the laws defined by the State. The power to frame such laws is in the hands of the legislature given by the people of the State. I never gave any powers to Facebook/Twitter/Google et all to regulate my speech as guaranteed by my Constitution (which is the Constitution of India). They cannot bring in First Amendment arguments of the United States to counter the Free Speech as defined in the Indian Constitution. It simply does not work that way.

----

Rate limited so replying to qwytw as s/he raises a very important point:

I don't see how this would be fundamentally different from, for example, requiring newspapers to publish every letter their receive irregardless of their editorial stance.

You are talking about curation not about banning/removal. Billions of tweets are sent to Twitter every day. But only few make it to the top of the trends. No one has a problem with curation. We have a problem with banning of our content just because Twitter feels it is problematic. Not because it is explicitly defined in the Constitution as being problematic.

Let us assume that you send a letter to a Newspaper to publish in editorial and you include swear words in it (Let us assume "orange haired buffoon" is a swear word. Because you are upset with Trump you call him an "orange haired buffoon" in your letter). The Newspaper won't publish it. That is perfectly fine. They won't punish you for it. Probably will make a paper rocket out of your letter and throw it around in the office. But if you send a violent threat in the letter (calling for assassination of Trump), they'll contact Police/FBI/CIA and hand them over your letter. Easy to grok?

Now let us compare that to Twitter. Twitter will read your tweet with swear words in it (Trump is a orange haired buffoon). It will immediately remove it and warn you of consequences of tweeting something like that again else face a 7 day suspension (with a subsequent warning of 30 day, 1 year and permanent suspension if you repeat it again and again). Already there is a big difference between how the Newspaper company handled your letter vs how Twitter handled your tweet.

Twitter is regulating speech here. It has decided that "orange haired buffoon" constitutes a violation of someone else's rights. You might have said "orange haired buffoon" in jest. The person receiving your tweet might also have gotten a good chuckle out of it. But Twitter decides nope. You do not have the right to use "orange haired buffoon" on our platform else you'll be kicked out. Even if you and your friend whom you are tweeting at swear at each other in real life, you can't do that on Twitter. Do you see how quickly this degenerates to suspending/banning for ridiculous things?

Which is why content removal/moderation must be only for those things that are clearly defined as illegal by the State. For everything else, the platform already has Section 230. They can enjoy not being liable for anything that is posted on their platforms. If I am a social media platform, why would I go out of my way to provide an imperfect implementation of speech regulation and waste my time on that aspect when I already have safeguards of Section 230? Wouldn't it be better if this is legally defined in the Constitution of the country where the user is from? That way there is consistency between platforms.

If I go to Parler, Facebook, Twitter, Google or any other platform I will be following the same rules (as defined by law) instead of reading the fine print of every service to see if I am in violation of any of their ridiculous rules/regulations.

If the speech is illegal then they can moderate it. Who defined it as illegal? The elected Government of the people right? No one voted for Jack Dorsey or Mark Zuckerberg. People voted for their own elected representatives who make the laws.

Private companies must follow what is in the law. If hate speech doesn't exist in the law people should lobby their elected representatives to enact laws governing hate speech which is then enforced by private companies. If private companies start making their own rules and regulations that go against freedom of speech (again don't bring in the first amendment as it applies only to US Citizens. Free speech in my country is not the same as Free speech as defined in first amendment) then it becomes problematic. Who is the final arbiter of free speech? It is the Government, the Court or the private company? If private companies start deciding what is illegal and what is not illegal then why the heck should I elect a Government? Just let private companies handle everything and let's dissolve the Government.

At the end of the day it should be the law of the land which decides what/which content is illegal and which is not. It should never be in the hands of private companies to decide. They have Section 230 precisely for that reason. They aren't liable for anything that happens on their platform except for what is defined as illegal in the Constitution. If there is something that is unsavoury and there isn't a law for it yet, the companies aren't held liable for it. When a law is passed deeming that unsavoury thing illegal then and only then will private companies be liable if they do not censor it. You get what I am trying to say? Laws should be implemented by the legislature. Period. Private companies can decide whatever rules they want to set for their employees. I am a user of the public platform they provide. Not their employee. They cannot regulate my speech unless it is required by law to censor anything illegal I say.

a Russian intelligence operative

Imagine if there was no "Russian Intelligence Operative" and it was right wing Americans all along. I'm sure Putin will be mighty pleased that he is being given so much credit for having destabilized a Superpower by doing literally nothing. Can you imagine the ego boost he would be getting out of it? If there is a way to self-destruct Americans have for sure found a way to do it. Irrational fears about Russians meddling in elections while saying in the same breath that mail-in ballots cannot be subject to fraud. Do you see how disconnected both arguments are? On one hand you say a foreign adversary can easily influence your election but in the same breath you say domestic actors cannot influence elections. Either your elections are so weak that they can be manipulated or they can't. Can't have it both ways. And yet Americans believe both stories coming from the same party and accept that it must be true.

Absolutely right. I can't believe people are unable to see this. I guess their hatred for Trump is to such an extent that they are willing to live in a fascist state where every part of their life is controlled by decisions of Government in collusion with Big Tech. It is so obvious yet it evades most people I discussed with over here. Everyone is cheering the advent of censorship. It is surreal!

Your post was flagged within half an hour of being up. I think you got your answer. Do you need any more proof to where we are headed?

And it is even more infuriating when it is the first amendment of the United States of America that is quoted as a definition for free speech. What free speech means in America is not the same as what free speech means in a European, African or Asian country. Every country defines free speech in their own ways. To always quote the first amendment as if the law applies to everyone in the World is seriously problematic.

USA is not the World. The World is not USA. It is high time we get out of this mentality.

Censorship is going to be the future. As long as Big Tech is dominated by leftist culture you'll have censorship. No two ways about it. Ideological censorship has been going on for years now. It just has reached its peak and has now become acceptable. I mean we readily accepted surveillance haven't we? Censorship is no big deal. We'll live with it too. We are happy being conditioned and looked after. There is no scope for individual thought anymore. Either you are with the group or you aren't. Internet was an escape for me during the 90s and early 2000s. Not anymore. Now it is the same bullshit that we find in the real world. That distinction between virtual and real life has melted away. Anything you say online has repercussions offline and anything you do offline has repercussions online. The Golden Era of Internet as we knew it is over.