8 ms·

Twitter suspends Sci-Hub account amid Indian court case

251 points by 1cvmask 6y ago

rvz 6y ago
> Ok, so that's dangerous enough to suspend, but accounts of literal tyrants and wannabe dictators are just fine? Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms and the 'problem' they tried to remove is still there. Instead of using PayPal, they'll just send Bitcoin to them instead which that is harder to stop. Sure, they can blacklist the address, they'll just create a thousand more wallet addresses. These bans are becoming pointless. If not, making it even worse. [0] https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-paper-pirate-takes-bitcoin-donations https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-pa...
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  > They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. I realize this is heresy, but maybe they should not be? > But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms Good. Please continue the coordinated and targeted bans. Compared to a Twitter that can't ban people, a diverse ecosystem of alternative services is a usable second place.
  - rvz 6y ago
    > Good. Please continue the coordinated and targeted bans. Compared to a Twitter that can't ban people, a diverse ecosystem of alternative services is a usable second place. So when the Big Tech companies start to coordinate, target and suspend YOUR accounts for 'any reason' that is also good?
    - wolco5 6y ago
      It is only good in the sense that it pushes people off of big tech and hopefully creates new tech.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
      Yup. But the real tragedy is there arent any alternatives. Antitrust legislation is what's needed imo. If there were real alternatives nobody would give a shit about being banned from one. The outrage shows these companies are too big.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        Alternatives exist. Look at the fediverse.
        serf 6y ago
        an alternative to twitter or facebook would have a comparable audience volume. there are plenty of alternatives functionally -- but no alternatives realistically.
        opan 6y ago
        You interact with a limited # of people. I don't think it matters if there are 100 million or 1 million (or fewer). You can follow people, monitor your feed, chat with friends. There are enough people on the fediverse that it doesn't feel like you're missing much from twitter besides corporate accounts.
        rhn_mk1 6y ago
        > it doesn't feel like you're missing much from twitter besides corporate accounts. Having watched Twitter from some distance, isn't that half the reason it's so popular?
        thereare5lights 6y ago
        You're forgetting about viral tweets
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  This is such a boring, off-topic argument. No one that you're responding to even argued that Twitter can't lawfully do it. Merely that this is a bad way for them to choose to behave. If I ask an alcoholic if he really wants to spend his days in a drug induced stupor, a good rebuttal would not be "Well he has every right to do that".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- adventured 6y ago
  > These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms No it won't. There are two app stores of consequence. Google just nuked free speech supporting Parler from their app store for example, trying to force them into ideological censorship compliance. When aggressive monopolies are doing the censoring in tandem, it's identical to an act of violence by the companies in question as there are not reasonable other channels left. It stops being a matter of a stray private corporation merely controlling how its property is used and becomes a matter for the government to defend the people being assaulted. Monopolies are always ultimately a matter of force and the sole way to deal with them short-term is to call upon the government to use its legal powers to stop the violent monopolists. A coup definitely occurred the other day, just not the one the laughable headlines proclaim ('unmasked, unarmed man in buffalo hat and jeans conquers US Government in daring toppling of superpower!'); rather, by big tech over speech. They've all been waiting for this moment of convenience (it's a Patriot Act kind of moment). From here on out they'll unabashedly use their co-monopoly over everything online to dictate speech. Quick question for everyone on HN: who actually seized power given our present context? The clown in the buffalo hat, or the billion & trillion dollar corporations that control most of the channels of communication? Now that that power move is taken care of some of the interested parties in the government will put the companies to work on more interesting privacy-destroying tasks.
  - Santosh83 6y ago
    Right, but these tech empires didn't 'seize control' just the other day when Capitol was overrun. They have been slowly ratcheting up control since years. Slowly boiling the frog while providing an ever-increasing dazzling trinkets of technology and convenience to the general public to distract them from festering underlying issues is their tactic. And they're succeeding all too well, and very much in cahoots with most governments, elected or not. Ultimately decentralisation of power/wealth has never succeeded in human history so far. It's just that in the last century or two, it has reached ridiculous levels of disparity, even though superficially it seems as if ordinary people are more empowered than ever.
    - shripadk 6y ago
- hnews_account_1 6y ago
  > They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. Isn't there a whole argument that if they are allowed to censor / ban, they should not enjoy the freedom of being labelled "publishers"? I don't understand that argument legally speaking, but that is an argument in opposition to this.
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    Right. If you are allowed to censor and ban, then anything that remains on your platform you've implicitly deemed acceptable and should be accountable for.
  - paul_f 6y ago
    Currently in the US you don't lose section 230 protection as a platform by restricting some content. All that matters is who created the content. Curating is not the same as creating. Some want to change this and it will be interesting to see what happens
- tasogare 6y ago
  Also it’s ironic that the same people who cheer for the recent bans are outraged when censorship targets their political beliefs (for instance when LGBT groups are removed from VKontakte). The thing is the wind can, and will probably turn, and one day the people advocating for bans now will be on the other end of the stick.
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  > Instead of using PayPal, they'll just send Bitcoin to them instead which that is harder to stop If you have a technologically sophisticated user base who is on board with cryptocurrency, you'll only lose 90% of your payments switching from credit cards to cryptocurrency. Don't minimize the damage that these bans and actions do merely because there is, in principle, a way to route around the damage. It's still plenty enough to kill off businesses, and anything with network effects that wants to be a platform will end up being stunted before it can take off.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    For now. Acting as if there isn't incentive - bankrolled incentive - to escape these bans and establish places where these punishments don't exist is equally foolish. People with massive media followings have the power to single-handedly blow up new networks and content distributors.
- darawk 6y ago
  > Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. The article isn't claiming it's illegal for Twitter to do this. They're saying they shouldn't. There are lots of things that people and entities are well within their legal rights to do that we rightfully criticize.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ejanus 6y ago
  If they continue this way they would be gone in 6 years time. They have gone too far, and it is time to leave their platform.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  Could be interesting to find out to which extent ‘Big Tech’ is complicit in stirring up people. Assuming the big services are the agents of manipulation usually suggested here. And assuming blocking accounts will drive some groups to use more neutral services (I absolutely no idea if this is the case, but I imagine censorship resisting services have a more freee software like ethos than profit driven) It could mean that it could be studied to what extent the platforms shape things in relation to the users them selves.
- afuchs 6y ago
  > ... But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. ... Since this language is divisive and emotionally charged is there any evidence to back this up? Is there direct evidence of active coordination or, per Occam's Razor, was it simply a set of similar reactions in response to the same stimuli?
mwnivek 6y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838
diebeforei485 6y ago
Why would they suspend it worldwide? They could just do it in India, which is the only jurisdiction any court in India can claim.
- judge2020 6y ago
  There's probably a scenario where the Indian courts claim that being able to access it whatsoever within the country means they haven't complied with the order (ie. VPN-based access), but this is probably more because it's easier for Legal to hit 'ban account' than do the work of asking engineers to implement geo-based account bans (this is assuming there aren't already geo-based account bans on Twitter; I can't find any reference to one).
  - shabda 6y ago
    There are geo based account bans. I have seen a few from India with a message similar to "This account has been withheld in India due to a legal request" Example is this account: https://twitter.com/gurmeetramrahim https://twitter.com/gurmeetramrahim
  - sn41 6y ago
    AFAIK no Indian court has complained about VPN access to twitter accounts. The parent seems to be right, there seems to be an overreaction by Twitter to an issue under consideration, not even completed. Twitter might have, as you said, just said that it is easier to suspend the account rather than bothering with geo-based blocking.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      In this case, the Delhi High Court hasn't even asked Twitter to ban the account. Instead it "rejected" a plea to ban the account. Twitter definitely censored Sci-Hub on its own volition. Quoting from the article: "In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."
alsetmusic 6y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 There’s a developed discussion.
yantrams 6y ago
Apologies in advance for side tracking the discussion. I came across this post on r/india looking for a volunteer Russian Interpreter for a talk by Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub. If anyone is interested, please reach out to the OP of https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/kpl5l4/looking_for_a_russian_to_english_interpreter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/kpl5l4/looking_for_a...
- jtsuken 6y ago
  Alexandra studied in Germany and the US. Her English should be fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan
villgax 6y ago
This appears to be related to things(however questionable) they did off twitter, whereas POTUS used twitter to incite & glorify violence.
newguy1234 6y ago
at this rate, will there be anyone left using twitter??
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Hopefully not.
Khaine 6y ago
Twitter delenda est
est 6y ago
Once the censorship kraken, there will be no end of this.
hemantv 6y ago
Thanks to this now I know sciHub and can always find good research paper on topics I want.
- netsec_burn 6y ago
  Sci-Hub for papers and Library Genesis for everything else. :)
hertzrat 6y ago
The actual link: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220738/twitter-sci-hub-suspended-indian-court-case https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220738/twit...
devdiary 6y ago
Oh. I wonder what is "one purpose of internet" that we all can agree upon A. To be useful B. To be right C. Other
OnlyRepliesToBS 6y ago
what is happening

251 points by 1cvmask 6y ago

rvz 6y ago

> Ok, so that's dangerous enough to suspend, but accounts of literal tyrants and wannabe dictators are just fine? Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms and the 'problem' they tried to remove is still there. Instead of using PayPal, they'll just send Bitcoin to them instead which that is harder to stop. Sure, they can blacklist the address, they'll just create a thousand more wallet addresses. These bans are becoming pointless. If not, making it even worse. [0] https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-paper-pirate-takes-bitcoin-donations https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-pa...

FeepingCreature 6y ago
> They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. I realize this is heresy, but maybe they should not be? > But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms Good. Please continue the coordinated and targeted bans. Compared to a Twitter that can't ban people, a diverse ecosystem of alternative services is a usable second place.
- rvz 6y ago
  > Good. Please continue the coordinated and targeted bans. Compared to a Twitter that can't ban people, a diverse ecosystem of alternative services is a usable second place. So when the Big Tech companies start to coordinate, target and suspend YOUR accounts for 'any reason' that is also good?
  - wolco5 6y ago
    It is only good in the sense that it pushes people off of big tech and hopefully creates new tech.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    Yup. But the real tragedy is there arent any alternatives. Antitrust legislation is what's needed imo. If there were real alternatives nobody would give a shit about being banned from one. The outrage shows these companies are too big.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      Alternatives exist. Look at the fediverse.
      - serf 6y ago
        an alternative to twitter or facebook would have a comparable audience volume. there are plenty of alternatives functionally -- but no alternatives realistically.
        opan 6y ago
        You interact with a limited # of people. I don't think it matters if there are 100 million or 1 million (or fewer). You can follow people, monitor your feed, chat with friends. There are enough people on the fediverse that it doesn't feel like you're missing much from twitter besides corporate accounts.
        rhn_mk1 6y ago
        > it doesn't feel like you're missing much from twitter besides corporate accounts. Having watched Twitter from some distance, isn't that half the reason it's so popular?
        thereare5lights 6y ago
        You're forgetting about viral tweets
oh_sigh 6y ago
This is such a boring, off-topic argument. No one that you're responding to even argued that Twitter can't lawfully do it. Merely that this is a bad way for them to choose to behave. If I ask an alcoholic if he really wants to spend his days in a drug induced stupor, a good rebuttal would not be "Well he has every right to do that".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
adventured 6y ago
> These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms No it won't. There are two app stores of consequence. Google just nuked free speech supporting Parler from their app store for example, trying to force them into ideological censorship compliance. When aggressive monopolies are doing the censoring in tandem, it's identical to an act of violence by the companies in question as there are not reasonable other channels left. It stops being a matter of a stray private corporation merely controlling how its property is used and becomes a matter for the government to defend the people being assaulted. Monopolies are always ultimately a matter of force and the sole way to deal with them short-term is to call upon the government to use its legal powers to stop the violent monopolists. A coup definitely occurred the other day, just not the one the laughable headlines proclaim ('unmasked, unarmed man in buffalo hat and jeans conquers US Government in daring toppling of superpower!'); rather, by big tech over speech. They've all been waiting for this moment of convenience (it's a Patriot Act kind of moment). From here on out they'll unabashedly use their co-monopoly over everything online to dictate speech. Quick question for everyone on HN: who actually seized power given our present context? The clown in the buffalo hat, or the billion & trillion dollar corporations that control most of the channels of communication? Now that that power move is taken care of some of the interested parties in the government will put the companies to work on more interesting privacy-destroying tasks.
- Santosh83 6y ago
  Right, but these tech empires didn't 'seize control' just the other day when Capitol was overrun. They have been slowly ratcheting up control since years. Slowly boiling the frog while providing an ever-increasing dazzling trinkets of technology and convenience to the general public to distract them from festering underlying issues is their tactic. And they're succeeding all too well, and very much in cahoots with most governments, elected or not. Ultimately decentralisation of power/wealth has never succeeded in human history so far. It's just that in the last century or two, it has reached ridiculous levels of disparity, even though superficially it seems as if ordinary people are more empowered than ever.
  - shripadk 6y ago
hnews_account_1 6y ago
> They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. Isn't there a whole argument that if they are allowed to censor / ban, they should not enjoy the freedom of being labelled "publishers"? I don't understand that argument legally speaking, but that is an argument in opposition to this.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  Right. If you are allowed to censor and ban, then anything that remains on your platform you've implicitly deemed acceptable and should be accountable for.
- paul_f 6y ago
  Currently in the US you don't lose section 230 protection as a platform by restricting some content. All that matters is who created the content. Curating is not the same as creating. Some want to change this and it will be interesting to see what happens
tasogare 6y ago
Also it’s ironic that the same people who cheer for the recent bans are outraged when censorship targets their political beliefs (for instance when LGBT groups are removed from VKontakte). The thing is the wind can, and will probably turn, and one day the people advocating for bans now will be on the other end of the stick.
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
> Instead of using PayPal, they'll just send Bitcoin to them instead which that is harder to stop If you have a technologically sophisticated user base who is on board with cryptocurrency, you'll only lose 90% of your payments switching from credit cards to cryptocurrency. Don't minimize the damage that these bans and actions do merely because there is, in principle, a way to route around the damage. It's still plenty enough to kill off businesses, and anything with network effects that wants to be a platform will end up being stunted before it can take off.
- nexuist 6y ago
  For now. Acting as if there isn't incentive - bankrolled incentive - to escape these bans and establish places where these punishments don't exist is equally foolish. People with massive media followings have the power to single-handedly blow up new networks and content distributors.
darawk 6y ago
> Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. The article isn't claiming it's illegal for Twitter to do this. They're saying they shouldn't. There are lots of things that people and entities are well within their legal rights to do that we rightfully criticize.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ejanus 6y ago
If they continue this way they would be gone in 6 years time. They have gone too far, and it is time to leave their platform.
CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
Could be interesting to find out to which extent ‘Big Tech’ is complicit in stirring up people. Assuming the big services are the agents of manipulation usually suggested here. And assuming blocking accounts will drive some groups to use more neutral services (I absolutely no idea if this is the case, but I imagine censorship resisting services have a more freee software like ethos than profit driven) It could mean that it could be studied to what extent the platforms shape things in relation to the users them selves.
afuchs 6y ago
> ... But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. ... Since this language is divisive and emotionally charged is there any evidence to back this up? Is there direct evidence of active coordination or, per Occam's Razor, was it simply a set of similar reactions in response to the same stimuli?

mwnivek 6y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838

diebeforei485 6y ago

Why would they suspend it worldwide? They could just do it in India, which is the only jurisdiction any court in India can claim.

judge2020 6y ago
There's probably a scenario where the Indian courts claim that being able to access it whatsoever within the country means they haven't complied with the order (ie. VPN-based access), but this is probably more because it's easier for Legal to hit 'ban account' than do the work of asking engineers to implement geo-based account bans (this is assuming there aren't already geo-based account bans on Twitter; I can't find any reference to one).
- shabda 6y ago
  There are geo based account bans. I have seen a few from India with a message similar to "This account has been withheld in India due to a legal request" Example is this account: https://twitter.com/gurmeetramrahim https://twitter.com/gurmeetramrahim
- sn41 6y ago
  AFAIK no Indian court has complained about VPN access to twitter accounts. The parent seems to be right, there seems to be an overreaction by Twitter to an issue under consideration, not even completed. Twitter might have, as you said, just said that it is easier to suspend the account rather than bothering with geo-based blocking.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    In this case, the Delhi High Court hasn't even asked Twitter to ban the account. Instead it "rejected" a plea to ban the account. Twitter definitely censored Sci-Hub on its own volition. Quoting from the article: "In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."

alsetmusic 6y ago

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25684838 There’s a developed discussion.

yantrams 6y ago

Apologies in advance for side tracking the discussion. I came across this post on r/india looking for a volunteer Russian Interpreter for a talk by Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub. If anyone is interested, please reach out to the OP of https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/kpl5l4/looking_for_a_russian_to_english_interpreter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/kpl5l4/looking_for_a...

jtsuken 6y ago
Alexandra studied in Germany and the US. Her English should be fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan

villgax 6y ago

This appears to be related to things(however questionable) they did off twitter, whereas POTUS used twitter to incite & glorify violence.

newguy1234 6y ago

at this rate, will there be anyone left using twitter??

matheusmoreira 6y ago
Hopefully not.

Khaine 6y ago

Twitter delenda est

est 6y ago

Once the censorship kraken, there will be no end of this.

hemantv 6y ago

Thanks to this now I know sciHub and can always find good research paper on topics I want.

netsec_burn 6y ago
Sci-Hub for papers and Library Genesis for everything else. :)

hertzrat 6y ago

The actual link: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220738/twitter-sci-hub-suspended-indian-court-case https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/8/22220738/twit...

devdiary 6y ago

Oh. I wonder what is "one purpose of internet" that we all can agree upon A. To be useful B. To be right C. Other

OnlyRepliesToBS 6y ago

what is happening