6 ms·

Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement. As much as I like Sci-Hub,

Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement. As much as I like Sci-Hub, it is clearly a service that disregards and breaches copyright. If you advocate for Twitter exercising a heavy hand on greyer areas (Trump), you shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same for clear breaches of their TOS/Laws (SciHub). It scares me that these big tech companies are becoming arbitrators for what many people see. The worst part is that it is allowing the US oligarchy to further influence the rest of the world too.

MauranKilom 6y ago
I can get behind the sentiment of your post, but could you detail how the Sci-Hub twitter account has breached Twitter TOS? Contrast that with Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis How has Trump violated Twitter's TOS on a daily basis? It feels like every policy that has been put up is typically put up specifically for Trump. I don't see how people can post photos of Kathy Griffin showing a decapitated Trump head as being kosher, or CNN's Como saying violent protest is constitutionally protected, and claim Trump is violating TOS. It's hypocrisy.
  - boredumb 6y ago
    hypocrisy is the new honesty
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    Posting election misinformation violates Twitter ToS, and since the election he has posted something violating that policy (in their judgment) if not every day, very close to it. These policies have been around since before the election [1]. These examples don't appear to be hypocritical to me on the surface, but I am certainly open to more information. Many people are not happy with Kathy Griffin doing that, on both sides. And I am honestly not sure how Cuomo saying that violates anything, could you explain? Or point me in the direction of it? I had not heard about it. If it does violate their ToS, then he should have received a suspension or at least warning too. [1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/civic-integrity-policy-update.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/civic-int... https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/2020-election-changes.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/2020-elec...
    - illustriousbear 6y ago
      My only problem with this is who determines what is election misinformation? If Russian authorities call another dubious election in favor of Putin, do we just accept that now and ban any dissenting opinions? I mean after all their authorities have set the official narrative, isn't anything else misinformation now?
      - Bedon292 6y ago
        While I think the comparison is a bit unfair, it does raise an interesting dilemma. I really don't know what you do in that situation. I don't think their government would be considered the trusted authorities on the matter, but who would be? At the same time Twitter is not a Russian company and does not have a large Russian presence that I know of. Are they under any moral obligation to help maintain free and fair elections there? Where they may feel like they are for the US.
        illustriousbear 6y ago
        Yeah I just used a more extreme example to make the point. Twitter is US based but they purposefully operate in a multi-national manner serving users across the world, so it's easy to argue that there is some responsibility. If Twitter wants to play arbitrator and set that expectation to the international community, what happens when they don't remove "misinformation" in other countries?
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  Sci-hub by its own admission is a service that breaks the law by providing unauthorised access to copyright materials. I don't know whether Sci-hub has violated Twitter ToS (on the platform) but it doesn't surprise me that Twitter would want to distance itself from an organization that is committed to breaking the law. A more dramatic/extreme example would be whether we would think it is ok for other illegal organisations/services (e.g terrorists) to be on Twitter if they weren't breaking ToS on the platform, I suspect many would say no. On Trump, it wouldn't surprise me if he broke Twitter ToS on the platform but you would have to admit that his ban would involve greyer interpretation of his tweets than a black-white ban of a service that aims to break the law. And I say this as a big support of sci-hub too. Generally speaking delete Facebook/Twitter/etc, I did and it has been a big improvement to my life.
djsumdog 6y ago
I agree that HN comments were completely and totally wrong to be onboard with banning Trump AND I also do not agree with banning Sci-Hub... but the solution isn't screaming at Twitter. The solution is using our freedom of speech and expression to start creating and supporting other services. I know that's hard, but at least in your personal life, try to use ActivityPub services and encourage everyone else to do so. Set up a Mastodon and Pleroma server and give invites to all your friends. Now I have done this and on my personal server, like 20+ friends have created accounts and to day .. only one still uses them. It will take time, and really only you can take care of yourself. Also, long-from blog. Follow any friends that blog with and RSS reader. Encourage everyone else to use an RSS reader. Why the hell are we using Twitter when you can follow the blogs and news sites with RSS? You can see which news sites have new articles, rather that letting Facebook and Twitter decide the order and type of information your receive.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  I agree mate, I've deleted all my social media and it has been great since day one. My consumption of information is so much better now that I have had to seek out reliable sources.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Twitter and Facebook and Youtube were argued as the alternatives to the previous generation of gatekeepers. Ungated media such as Usenet of various moderation-free zones online also fail. There's an inherent cconflict between complete freedom of access -- a sort of full-body local contact or intimacy, and and of distance, time, and/or scale. Distribution and scale presume a gating function somewhere. The only remaining question is what the channel biases for.
Bedon292 6y ago
Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's not a grey area. In the case of Sci-Hub what part of the ToS do they violate? The message cites counterfeiting, which doesn't seem to apply (unless that's a translation issue?). And if Piracy is a violation of their terms then why are there plenty of piracy torrent websites with Twitter presences still [2]? At least apply it evenly. [1] https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 [2] Not linking directly, just search for the pirate bay, eztv, or any other torrent site. There are at least one or more handles claiming to be them.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  Those are certainly fair points but I think getting bogged down in the ToS and details is side stepping the real issue here. At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules if they want. As a major source of information, is that what you want? Is getting bogged down in ToS details really the important issue here? If we yell at Twitter and demand them to ban certain content, they are also going to exercise that power when it serves their interests too. You can't have it both ways.
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    I don't feel like its getting bogged down in the ToS, but I think I get your point. My main concern is about even application of their policies across the board. If they say something is against their ToS and want to ban it, fine, that's on them. But apply that same thing to everyone. I don't like banning one piracy site but not another. Or banning random folks but not the President. I understand why it happens, just feels more wrong to me than any singular policy decision. In my opinion: Should they ban misinformation? Yes. Should they ban piracy? I want to say no, but if I am really thinking about it they probably should when actually compared with the other things I say yes to. Makes me wonder what kind of ethics theory there is around these kinds of situations. Probably some good reading out there. Anyone know of any good things to read on the subject?
Method-X 6y ago
This doesn’t negate your comment but I would like to add that I support Sci-Hub because I think charging for publicly funded content is just wrong on so many levels. Simply put, the laws need to change; and when/if they do, Twitter won’t have to do this sort of thing.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  I agree 100%. Social media also needs to be completely reformed so moderation policy and enforcement isn't up to a small collection of individuals living in the United States.
screye 6y ago
In my experience, those applauding twitter for banning Trump are a different demographic than those who are criticizing the ban on Scihub. I find both to be an abuse of power by Twitter. Sec. 230 protects Twitter from being accountable for content produced by its users. At the same time, it wants to engage in political activism at an organizational level. Twitter wants to be the all-powerful Editor-in-chief with power to censor the world's headlines. But, they also want to be unaccountable for the content produced by its platform. That is blatantly hypocritical. A corporate entity with pure profit motives and without the people's mandate, should not have the power to control speech without accountability.
cambalache 6y ago
You are being downvoted because you are hurting the hypocrites here. Twitter banning Trump/conservatives= good. Twitter banning people I dont like= Bad. BLM violent protests= good. Trump violent protests = bad. HKers assaulting the parliament= good. Americans doing the same= bad. Assange exposing conservatives=good. Assange exposing democrats= jail the bastard. The horseshoe model is more alive than never before.
userbinator 6y ago
"First they came for Trump, and I didn't care because I hated him anyway..."

MauranKilom 6y ago

I can get behind the sentiment of your post, but could you detail how the Sci-Hub twitter account has breached Twitter TOS? Contrast that with Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis.

djsumdog 6y ago
> Trump who has been very clearly violating twitter TOS on a daily basis How has Trump violated Twitter's TOS on a daily basis? It feels like every policy that has been put up is typically put up specifically for Trump. I don't see how people can post photos of Kathy Griffin showing a decapitated Trump head as being kosher, or CNN's Como saying violent protest is constitutionally protected, and claim Trump is violating TOS. It's hypocrisy.
- boredumb 6y ago
  hypocrisy is the new honesty
- Bedon292 6y ago
  Posting election misinformation violates Twitter ToS, and since the election he has posted something violating that policy (in their judgment) if not every day, very close to it. These policies have been around since before the election [1]. These examples don't appear to be hypocritical to me on the surface, but I am certainly open to more information. Many people are not happy with Kathy Griffin doing that, on both sides. And I am honestly not sure how Cuomo saying that violates anything, could you explain? Or point me in the direction of it? I had not heard about it. If it does violate their ToS, then he should have received a suspension or at least warning too. [1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/civic-integrity-policy-update.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/civic-int... https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/2020-election-changes.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/2020-elec...
  - illustriousbear 6y ago
    My only problem with this is who determines what is election misinformation? If Russian authorities call another dubious election in favor of Putin, do we just accept that now and ban any dissenting opinions? I mean after all their authorities have set the official narrative, isn't anything else misinformation now?
    - Bedon292 6y ago
      While I think the comparison is a bit unfair, it does raise an interesting dilemma. I really don't know what you do in that situation. I don't think their government would be considered the trusted authorities on the matter, but who would be? At the same time Twitter is not a Russian company and does not have a large Russian presence that I know of. Are they under any moral obligation to help maintain free and fair elections there? Where they may feel like they are for the US.
      - illustriousbear 6y ago
        Yeah I just used a more extreme example to make the point. Twitter is US based but they purposefully operate in a multi-national manner serving users across the world, so it's easy to argue that there is some responsibility. If Twitter wants to play arbitrator and set that expectation to the international community, what happens when they don't remove "misinformation" in other countries?
illustriousbear 6y ago
Sci-hub by its own admission is a service that breaks the law by providing unauthorised access to copyright materials. I don't know whether Sci-hub has violated Twitter ToS (on the platform) but it doesn't surprise me that Twitter would want to distance itself from an organization that is committed to breaking the law. A more dramatic/extreme example would be whether we would think it is ok for other illegal organisations/services (e.g terrorists) to be on Twitter if they weren't breaking ToS on the platform, I suspect many would say no. On Trump, it wouldn't surprise me if he broke Twitter ToS on the platform but you would have to admit that his ban would involve greyer interpretation of his tweets than a black-white ban of a service that aims to break the law. And I say this as a big support of sci-hub too. Generally speaking delete Facebook/Twitter/etc, I did and it has been a big improvement to my life.

djsumdog 6y ago

I agree that HN comments were completely and totally wrong to be onboard with banning Trump AND I also do not agree with banning Sci-Hub... but the solution isn't screaming at Twitter. The solution is using our freedom of speech and expression to start creating and supporting other services. I know that's hard, but at least in your personal life, try to use ActivityPub services and encourage everyone else to do so. Set up a Mastodon and Pleroma server and give invites to all your friends. Now I have done this and on my personal server, like 20+ friends have created accounts and to day .. only one still uses them. It will take time, and really only you can take care of yourself. Also, long-from blog. Follow any friends that blog with and RSS reader. Encourage everyone else to use an RSS reader. Why the hell are we using Twitter when you can follow the blogs and news sites with RSS? You can see which news sites have new articles, rather that letting Facebook and Twitter decide the order and type of information your receive.

illustriousbear 6y ago
I agree mate, I've deleted all my social media and it has been great since day one. My consumption of information is so much better now that I have had to seek out reliable sources.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Twitter and Facebook and Youtube were argued as the alternatives to the previous generation of gatekeepers. Ungated media such as Usenet of various moderation-free zones online also fail. There's an inherent cconflict between complete freedom of access -- a sort of full-body local contact or intimacy, and and of distance, time, and/or scale. Distribution and scale presume a gating function somewhere. The only remaining question is what the channel biases for.

Bedon292 6y ago

Twitter has said on a number of occasions [1] that Trump has violated their ToS, but allowed him to stay because it was important for the public to see. That's not a grey area. In the case of Sci-Hub what part of the ToS do they violate? The message cites counterfeiting, which doesn't seem to apply (unless that's a translation issue?). And if Piracy is a violation of their terms then why are there plenty of piracy torrent websites with Twitter presences still [2]? At least apply it evenly. [1] https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267447838949378 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1323868590047744000 [2] Not linking directly, just search for the pirate bay, eztv, or any other torrent site. There are at least one or more handles claiming to be them.

illustriousbear 6y ago
Those are certainly fair points but I think getting bogged down in the ToS and details is side stepping the real issue here. At the end of the day Twitter moderates its own service, which is just their managers and random team members. Twitter sets the rules and can find any justification to ban whoever they want. Do you really think Twitter constrains themselves by their rules? I don't, they will change those rules if they want. As a major source of information, is that what you want? Is getting bogged down in ToS details really the important issue here? If we yell at Twitter and demand them to ban certain content, they are also going to exercise that power when it serves their interests too. You can't have it both ways.
- Bedon292 6y ago
  I don't feel like its getting bogged down in the ToS, but I think I get your point. My main concern is about even application of their policies across the board. If they say something is against their ToS and want to ban it, fine, that's on them. But apply that same thing to everyone. I don't like banning one piracy site but not another. Or banning random folks but not the President. I understand why it happens, just feels more wrong to me than any singular policy decision. In my opinion: Should they ban misinformation? Yes. Should they ban piracy? I want to say no, but if I am really thinking about it they probably should when actually compared with the other things I say yes to. Makes me wonder what kind of ethics theory there is around these kinds of situations. Probably some good reading out there. Anyone know of any good things to read on the subject?

Method-X 6y ago

This doesn’t negate your comment but I would like to add that I support Sci-Hub because I think charging for publicly funded content is just wrong on so many levels. Simply put, the laws need to change; and when/if they do, Twitter won’t have to do this sort of thing.

illustriousbear 6y ago
I agree 100%. Social media also needs to be completely reformed so moderation policy and enforcement isn't up to a small collection of individuals living in the United States.

screye 6y ago

In my experience, those applauding twitter for banning Trump are a different demographic than those who are criticizing the ban on Scihub. I find both to be an abuse of power by Twitter. Sec. 230 protects Twitter from being accountable for content produced by its users. At the same time, it wants to engage in political activism at an organizational level. Twitter wants to be the all-powerful Editor-in-chief with power to censor the world's headlines. But, they also want to be unaccountable for the content produced by its platform. That is blatantly hypocritical. A corporate entity with pure profit motives and without the people's mandate, should not have the power to control speech without accountability.

cambalache 6y ago

You are being downvoted because you are hurting the hypocrites here. Twitter banning Trump/conservatives= good. Twitter banning people I dont like= Bad. BLM violent protests= good. Trump violent protests = bad. HKers assaulting the parliament= good. Americans doing the same= bad. Assange exposing conservatives=good. Assange exposing democrats= jail the bastard. The horseshoe model is more alive than never before.

userbinator 6y ago

"First they came for Trump, and I didn't care because I hated him anyway..."