11 ms·
Mexico president slams social media censorship
- amelius 6y agoFreedom of speech != broadcasting rights
- valuearb 6y agoPoliticians looooove free broadcasting rights tho.
- chr1 6y agoJust like shop owner shouldn't refuse to sell you something, because he doesn't like your hair color, social media company shouldn't refuse to broadcast your speech. Note that this is different from tv or radio, because then the broadcasting company has to do additional work to broadcast your speech, but with social media the company has to do additional work to block it. Edit: can't -> should't (sorry english is not my first language)
- grahamburger 6y ago> social media company can't refuse to broadcast your speech. No, they don't. You might think that they should have to, but as things are today, they don't.
- desigooner 6y agoWait. Where were you when the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?! Smh..
- chr1 6y agoThis is a good example too. A baker cannot be forced to do unusual or creative work he doesn't like, but refusing to sell pre-made cake, or refusing to do routine customizations (like selecting colour or text if these are always done for other customers), is wrong. So as far as i can tell from wikipedia article the decision of US court was wrong, and the situation republicans find themselves in, is in a way deserved. I am not from US, and I think it's really sad that most people think, that by opinion on one issue it is possible to infer opinions on all the other issues. Social media makes it too easy to create echo chambers, and see only strawman versions of other sides arguments, freedom of speech and tolerance is the only way to heal the society.
- CraigJPerry 6y agoIt’s a private company. So long as it’s not discriminating on legally defined grounds, it’s free to do whatever the hell it wants. The official broadcasting channels of the us gov remain fully open at Mr Trump’s disposal.
- mreome 6y agoBusinesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is specifically discriminating against a person for being part of a protected class. Hair color is not a legally protected class last time I checked.
- konjin 6y agoThe idea of a protected class is a fascist one. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Everyone has the same rights and protections. How the same people who complained about apartheid can then reinvent it in under 20 years is beyond me.
- dang 6y agoPlease stop posting ideological flamebait to HN. Comments that take threads, and the site, further into hell are just what we're trying to avoid here. You've been doing this a lot lately, and we ban such accounts, regardless of which politics you favor or disfavor. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- m00x 6y ago> Just like shop owner can't refuse to sell you something, because he doesn't like your hair color, social media company can't refuse to broadcast your speech. Might want to do research before arguing. This is incredibly inaccurate. Only discriminating against protected classes is illegal, shop owners can refuse to serve you for any other reason.
- chr1 6y agoI am not talking about laws in any particular country, but the way things would work in practice. If you see a shop owner refuse service to a girl because of green hair, would you say "that's ok, not a protected class so she had it coming" or would you refuse to do business with that shop owner, and demand fair treatment?
- bpodgursky 6y agoCensorship != government censorship
- sacks2k 6y agoI've heard this argument a lot lately. What other amendments should we allow corporations to break? You are also only saying this because your side is the one doing the censoring. If Republicans had control of all tech and media and you were almost completely censored, I think your opinion would change.
- bobthebuilders 6y agoWe've been completely censored for a long time now...
- bpodgursky 6y agoI'm actually saying the opposite — bad things are bad when corporations do them, even if for now legal.
- johndevor 6y agoThe left is anti-trust when big companies get too much power. The left is pro-free market when big companies are anti-conservative.
- rzz3 6y agoSo you’re saying it’s fine for only certain ideas to be able to be broadcast to the world? Forget the government’s role in it, I’m not talking about that whatsoever. I mean, philosophically, are you okay with a small number of companies controlling what can or can’t be broadcast?
- kbar13 6y agodoesn’t wanna meddle in other countries affairs but he will comment on american companies moderation decisions... ok bubba
- thatguy0900 6y agoIs Twitter, at this point, another country's affairs? They are as global as it gets. Twitter going after a politician in America is a threat to every politician in the world. The American tech companies are not just one nations concern,unfortunately.
- m00x 6y agoTwitter didn't go after him for no reason, he called for violence and consistently misinforms everyone. They have rules and he broke them, he finally gets the same treatment as everyone else.
- scop 6y agoAs did Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny: https://mobile.twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644 https://mobile.twitter.com/navalny/status/134796977217726464...
- ghjuuhhhy 6y agoIf his the leader of the opposition, it means he's an anti-communist, a late stage capitalist. So his opinion doesn't matter.
- a0zU 6y agoRussian bots on Hacker News?
- dang 6y agoPlease don't do this here. It's against the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- avaika 6y agoIt might be new to you, but communist regime in Russia is gone for almost 30 years. So opposition is not about communism / anti-communism anymore (:
- dang 6y agoPlease don't post ideological flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- courtf 6y agoHis argument is that there are worse people on Twitter, which doesn't necessarily imply they were wrong to ban Trump.
- chr1 6y agoNo, his argument is that such things can't be decided by arbitrary whims of unknown group of people, there must be clear, consistent rules, and a way to appeal.
- newsclues 6y agoFree speech vs Trump Hate Probably going to be like Liberty vs Security after 9/11
- iaHN 6y ago> "When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me." - Donald Trump, during his presidential bid [1] [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06...
- courtf 6y agoThis was before he got a taste for Goya. Funnily enough, China also promised Trump some magic beans if he would legitimize Kim Jong-un.
- perl4ever 6y agoAs I became aware of at the time that Goya was in the news, it isn't actually a Mexican company. It's a New Jersey company founded by immigrants from Spain.
- greatgirl 6y agoAm I the only one being very smug about all this? Not only am I glad the president is gone, but watching everyone who otherwise defends free markets tooth and nail get mad when the free market does what it's supposed to do is very gratifying also.
- tertius 6y agoDoes what it's supposed to do. In your view, how so?
- conception 6y agoThe businesses in question found it to be bad business to keep the president on their platform so they removed him. They aren’t being altruistic.
- jpxw 6y agoYou seriously think that Twitter decided to ban Trump because they think they will make more money if they do? Seems very unlikely to me. Trump draws massive traffic to Twitter.
- nostromo 6y agoSaid business is cozying up to the party taking control of the house, senate, and presidency. It has nothing to do with any market.
- grahamburger 6y agoAs they are free to do. The right tend to be the ones defending the rights of companies to do whatever they want, and it has bit them this time.
- tertius 6y agoYes, but companies don't normally do whatever they want... This action has nothing to do with free market economics.
- brink 6y agoThe comments on HN are getting increasingly tribalistic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoIt seems everything is. HN can't be immune from macro trends, unfortunately.
- casefields 6y agoThe rhetoric throughout society is getting hotter, thens no way some of that isn't going to spill here. Especially when big tech are right dash in the middle of these political slap fights.
- mtzaldo 6y agoIm going to create my own twitter with blackjack and ...
- javchz 6y agoI will say this it's a good sing, that twitter did the right call. I'm from Mexico, and the current president it's the definition of a demagogue. All word days, he spends 2 hours of his time in a press conference to his achievements and attacking opponents (not only other politicians, but the press that speaks about scandals of his party). Despite presenting himself as a "leftist", AMLO it's closer to Trump or Bolsonaro, that to Trudeau or Jacinda Ardern. To them freedom of speech, it's "talking without facing the consequences of their words". Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- avaika 6y agoThe real dilemma to me sounds like what we define as freedom of speech in the first place? If we say let anyone say anything, we end up with someone encouraging discrimination or even genocide. From the other side if we introduce restrictions on what's allowed to say and what's not, who decides black and white? Even if we build a trustworthy system for decisions, what about gray areas? E.g. antivaxxers. Their efforts might make people die. Indirectly. But it can happen. If antivaxxers are banned, should we do the same for flatearthers?
- TravHatesMe 6y agoI've often heard people claiming that twitter/facebook/etc. can be considered public forums .. and as much of a stretch as it is, I'm inclined to agree. This is where people get their news. It is kind of like to taking a TV station off the air due to their political leanings. Tbh I've tuned out the news in the last few months for my own sanity so I might not have all the info to hold a strong opinion. Always good to default to freedom of speech though, the most sacred thing we have. Looking back on the last few years, the most disappointing thing in society is the intolerance and tribalism. I bet if people were to state their own opinions, without any outside influence, we would all be at each other's throats given the current state of affairs. You don't agree with me on X so fuck you, where X >= petty. I have friends with varying political leanings but we seem to be the exception -- when did the slightest differences in political opinion become devastating deal breakers? You don't support BLM? You're an awful person. You want to ban guns? Burn in hell. These could otherwise be nice people that you could be friendly with. Has it always been this bad or has the internet underscored the black-and-white nature of politics?
- mabbo 6y ago> can be considered public forums If they are public forums, let them be run by the government.
- kyledrake 6y ago"ALL censorship is bad, free speech is good. Counter bad arguments with good arguments" has long been the consensus, but when applied it has fundamentally failed. You don't have reasoned debates with people that have been brainwashed into cults, and who cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction. There are demonstrated dangers, recently and throughout history, of allowing certain people (particularly violent and powerful people) to have unlimited, unrestrained free speech. Saying that Twitter should not be allowed to ban Trump is taking away Twitter's free speech rights to decide who they want to have in their community and on their private, non governmental platform. If you disagree with that, you are proposing to regulate Twitter as a public utility that will be able to censor Twitter's right to do that. But even without that, inciting riots and threatening people was never considered protected speech anyways, and that's exactly what he was doing with his account. What's happened on Twitter instead, is that instead of banning him long ago for violating their policies multiple times over, they've in fact protected him unduly as he does things that would have gotten other people removed from the platform and probably sued or arrested a long time ago. He has in fact gotten more free speech rights than other people have. This shouldn't surprise anyone that has studied American history. Free speech laws disproportionately empower people of means of using them, and much less people like their victims. The flavor of free speech in this country I'm told to unconditionally believe in was conceived by landholders and plantation owners. How much freedom of speech did Thomas Jefferson's slaves have? Unconditional "free speech", which thanks to Citizens United now includes money, still principally serves the Masters: the rich and powerful, the owners, far more than it will ever serve their victims. We don't do free speech or it's victims any favors by whitewashing the history of free speech, who disproportionately benefits from it, and who are the victims of it. I'm not opposed to "free speech", but the tech crowd needs to get a lot better about understanding that there are nuances and complexities to it, and stop treating it like a religious edict that has to be worshiped unconditionally. They need to understand that applying it in a pure form can lead to outcomes that are dangerous to our safety and our society. If 2020 hasn't made this crystal clear, I really don't know what else I can do to convince people of this. I can't even eat at restaurants anymore.