38 ms·

This is too much control for one company. This is really bad for democracy. JIO is deeply embedded into the rural populace. Exactly the ones who are vulnerabl

This is too much control for one company. This is really bad for democracy. JIO is deeply embedded into the rural populace. Exactly the ones who are vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. And facebook just bought a key to the gates.

wewake 7y ago
Exactly. > JIO is deeply embedded into the rural populace. Exactly the ones who are vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. This deeply concerns me as it will have unwanted consequences.
mycall 7y ago
Does India have less free speech protections?
- sn41 7y ago
  India has good free speech protections by law. In practice, there is very little tolerance.
- kumarvvr 7y ago
  Imagine a rumor going around in Whatsapp. Lets say it violates free speech laws and is liable to be sued and the one who sues is sure to win. Lets say he sues and wins. It still doesn't matter. Rumor about the lawsuit and the falsehood of the original content is already old news. And is not as quickly spreading as the original rumor. The perpetrators of the original rumor win the war to influence, in-spite of free speech protections. Free speech protections and laws mean nothing and are toothless in face of modern mass media tech. Compare it to the old days, of the news being said on TV or Radio or in a Newspaper. They too can spread wild rumors but have definite and impactful backlash. That negative feedback mechanism is lacking in platforms like FB and Whatsapp.
- searchableguy 7y ago
  Probably but are laws real without enforcement? I have seen few people getting beaten up badly and two dying due to mob killing them with law enforcement involved for speaking against "religious stuff" and a politician. Just a recent thing that got some attention - https://twitter.com/ShefVaidya/status/1251818372343439361?s=19 https://twitter.com/ShefVaidya/status/1251818372343439361?s=... But I assure you, this happens way more in small towns and villages.
  - screamingninja 7y ago
    Your Twitter reference has nothing to do with what you described above. Nice try with the rumor mill.
    - searchableguy 7y ago
      It highlights that even with the police commissioner there, people can kill you for a rumour. So what is government enforcing if mob can take you apart for any reason they want? If mob gets triggered by you criticising their cows or government (idk why blind patriotism is so widespread here), what would you do about your free speech if you get killed in the process with no enforcement against those who killed you or imagine a family member? Honestly I am confused about free speech as well. Is the argument that government didn't stop you from criticising itself, just that the mob happens to kill you for it in public in the presence of the government make sense? Is that free speech?
    - newyankee 7y ago
      Very disingenuous reply, you can clearly see what happened in the video. Unconfirmed reports from different media sources (which hesitated to report this extensively for obvious reasons) indicated rumors from the fact that they were organ harvesting to that they were thieves etc.
- billfruit 7y ago
  Very less, people are routinely arrested for simple things like posting on FB on Twitter. And there is some Draconian sedition law, almost all critisim of government can be persecuted under that. Also the freedom of speech guarantees are very watered down in comparison with the USA.
achow 7y ago
I'm sure WhatsApp is already more deeply entrenched than Jio. This is more of a commerce play, nothing to do with disinformation dissemination.
ravenstine 7y ago
As long as enough people submit to the "muh private company" idea, this will only get worse.
- searchableguy 7y ago
  I am not sure what other options are there. Government owned companies? Because I don't see that working with [0] government censoring it's citizens and being so incompetent that it needs to have an internet shutdown all the time. Other countries face similar issues but they don't shut down the whole internet for their incompetence. Indian government itself participates in disinformation campaigns, denies statistics coming from the outside (given india has done nothing on that front and only cut funding), practice blatant discrimination and spreads religious nonsense. [0] https://internetshutdowns.in/ https://internetshutdowns.in/ Oh and the nice bill - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Data_Protection_Bill_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Data_Protection_Bil...
- lwb 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have private companies?
  - kumarvvr 7y ago
    No, what I think he is suggesting is that everything private companies do is defended to the extreme, just becasuse the alternative of having govt. controlled entities is undesirable. Even I agree, there is too much worship of capitalist and free market structures. There ought to be a good balance between free market and govt. regulations, where public interests in protected.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      Yes, the people who worship capitalism are baffling, because corporate tyranny eventually becomes indistinguishable from government tyranny. For instance, if Facebook and Google became so pervasive that they could censor everything that everyone says, then our constitutional rights don't mean anything. I respect people's perspective most of the time, but I disrespect people who think that private companies have a license to do anything they want because it just doesn't seem to be a well thought out idea. Then there are those who suddenly talk like free market capitalists when it's convenient to their politics. I see this all the time with whomever the balance of power is favoring. 15 years ago, it was conservatives who excused private companies that did things that liberals didn't like, as long as those companies appeared to align with their values or were at least agnostic, and now you'll hear liberals who otherwise hate capitalism pull out the "private company" card when it suits their goals or is an affront to the other side. I believe very few people are actually interested in the public good. Everyone claims they want to do things for the public good. In reality, I think they all want whatever goodies they think they can get by acting as toadies for their party of choice. There ought to be a balance between freedom and regulation, but this is increasingly becoming a minority opinion.
ddrt 7y ago
Isn’t their leader an extreme nationalist? How does it get worse than that?
- vegiraghav 7y ago
  Our leader is not an extremist nationalist. Next.
  - fermienrico 7y ago
    This is not a way to respond on HN. Please be respectful.
    - taikawatiti 7y ago
      Yeah he should probably listen to subversive commentary on the css programmers turned philosopher forum mr respectful.
    - vegiraghav 7y ago
      May be its just me, but I think calling a democratically elected leader of the most diverse country in the world, an extremist, is more disrespectful.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - kumarvvr 7y ago
        Its a first world thing. They can overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, and install a dictator, wage a war against Vietnam for more than a decade, meddle with south american nations wholesale, rub hands with despots like MBS of Suadi Arabia and then come to the oldest civilization in the world, one of the most diverse, culturally rich society that has survived 200 years of Imperialist rule, an even more years under Islamist rape and plunder and looting, and then claim the democratically leader emerging from one of the biggest and universally agreed free and fair elections as 'extremely nationalist'. If the leader of the country reflects the average joe of that country, I would gleefully point to trump.
rgrs 7y ago
Democracy is not about running private companies. CCI and monopoly laws should take care of that.

wewake 7y ago

Exactly. > JIO is deeply embedded into the rural populace. Exactly the ones who are vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. This deeply concerns me as it will have unwanted consequences.

mycall 7y ago

Does India have less free speech protections?

sn41 7y ago
India has good free speech protections by law. In practice, there is very little tolerance.
kumarvvr 7y ago
Imagine a rumor going around in Whatsapp. Lets say it violates free speech laws and is liable to be sued and the one who sues is sure to win. Lets say he sues and wins. It still doesn't matter. Rumor about the lawsuit and the falsehood of the original content is already old news. And is not as quickly spreading as the original rumor. The perpetrators of the original rumor win the war to influence, in-spite of free speech protections. Free speech protections and laws mean nothing and are toothless in face of modern mass media tech. Compare it to the old days, of the news being said on TV or Radio or in a Newspaper. They too can spread wild rumors but have definite and impactful backlash. That negative feedback mechanism is lacking in platforms like FB and Whatsapp.
searchableguy 7y ago
Probably but are laws real without enforcement? I have seen few people getting beaten up badly and two dying due to mob killing them with law enforcement involved for speaking against "religious stuff" and a politician. Just a recent thing that got some attention - https://twitter.com/ShefVaidya/status/1251818372343439361?s=19 https://twitter.com/ShefVaidya/status/1251818372343439361?s=... But I assure you, this happens way more in small towns and villages.
- screamingninja 7y ago
  Your Twitter reference has nothing to do with what you described above. Nice try with the rumor mill.
  - searchableguy 7y ago
    It highlights that even with the police commissioner there, people can kill you for a rumour. So what is government enforcing if mob can take you apart for any reason they want? If mob gets triggered by you criticising their cows or government (idk why blind patriotism is so widespread here), what would you do about your free speech if you get killed in the process with no enforcement against those who killed you or imagine a family member? Honestly I am confused about free speech as well. Is the argument that government didn't stop you from criticising itself, just that the mob happens to kill you for it in public in the presence of the government make sense? Is that free speech?
  - newyankee 7y ago
    Very disingenuous reply, you can clearly see what happened in the video. Unconfirmed reports from different media sources (which hesitated to report this extensively for obvious reasons) indicated rumors from the fact that they were organ harvesting to that they were thieves etc.
billfruit 7y ago
Very less, people are routinely arrested for simple things like posting on FB on Twitter. And there is some Draconian sedition law, almost all critisim of government can be persecuted under that. Also the freedom of speech guarantees are very watered down in comparison with the USA.

achow 7y ago

I'm sure WhatsApp is already more deeply entrenched than Jio. This is more of a commerce play, nothing to do with disinformation dissemination.

ravenstine 7y ago

As long as enough people submit to the "muh private company" idea, this will only get worse.

searchableguy 7y ago
I am not sure what other options are there. Government owned companies? Because I don't see that working with [0] government censoring it's citizens and being so incompetent that it needs to have an internet shutdown all the time. Other countries face similar issues but they don't shut down the whole internet for their incompetence. Indian government itself participates in disinformation campaigns, denies statistics coming from the outside (given india has done nothing on that front and only cut funding), practice blatant discrimination and spreads religious nonsense. [0] https://internetshutdowns.in/ https://internetshutdowns.in/ Oh and the nice bill - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Data_Protection_Bill_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Data_Protection_Bil...
lwb 7y ago
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have private companies?
- kumarvvr 7y ago
  No, what I think he is suggesting is that everything private companies do is defended to the extreme, just becasuse the alternative of having govt. controlled entities is undesirable. Even I agree, there is too much worship of capitalist and free market structures. There ought to be a good balance between free market and govt. regulations, where public interests in protected.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Yes, the people who worship capitalism are baffling, because corporate tyranny eventually becomes indistinguishable from government tyranny. For instance, if Facebook and Google became so pervasive that they could censor everything that everyone says, then our constitutional rights don't mean anything. I respect people's perspective most of the time, but I disrespect people who think that private companies have a license to do anything they want because it just doesn't seem to be a well thought out idea. Then there are those who suddenly talk like free market capitalists when it's convenient to their politics. I see this all the time with whomever the balance of power is favoring. 15 years ago, it was conservatives who excused private companies that did things that liberals didn't like, as long as those companies appeared to align with their values or were at least agnostic, and now you'll hear liberals who otherwise hate capitalism pull out the "private company" card when it suits their goals or is an affront to the other side. I believe very few people are actually interested in the public good. Everyone claims they want to do things for the public good. In reality, I think they all want whatever goodies they think they can get by acting as toadies for their party of choice. There ought to be a balance between freedom and regulation, but this is increasingly becoming a minority opinion.

ddrt 7y ago

Isn’t their leader an extreme nationalist? How does it get worse than that?

vegiraghav 7y ago
Our leader is not an extremist nationalist. Next.
- fermienrico 7y ago
  This is not a way to respond on HN. Please be respectful.
  - taikawatiti 7y ago
    Yeah he should probably listen to subversive commentary on the css programmers turned philosopher forum mr respectful.
  - vegiraghav 7y ago
    May be its just me, but I think calling a democratically elected leader of the most diverse country in the world, an extremist, is more disrespectful.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - kumarvvr 7y ago
      Its a first world thing. They can overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran, and install a dictator, wage a war against Vietnam for more than a decade, meddle with south american nations wholesale, rub hands with despots like MBS of Suadi Arabia and then come to the oldest civilization in the world, one of the most diverse, culturally rich society that has survived 200 years of Imperialist rule, an even more years under Islamist rape and plunder and looting, and then claim the democratically leader emerging from one of the biggest and universally agreed free and fair elections as 'extremely nationalist'. If the leader of the country reflects the average joe of that country, I would gleefully point to trump.

rgrs 7y ago

Democracy is not about running private companies. CCI and monopoly laws should take care of that.