5 ms·

They agreed to the TOS like everyone else... If people don't want 'big tech' to be 'Ministry of Information' stop using them as such? The Chinese government h

They agreed to the TOS like everyone else... If people don't want 'big tech' to be 'Ministry of Information' stop using them as such? The Chinese government has plenty of channels they could use instead.

leereeves 6y ago
What channels could they use instead?
- loceng 6y ago
  Sorry but this is a moot point. The real question to ask is do you think it's a good idea or fair to give equal access to Americans and those in nations with free speech, when we're not allowed or able to say what we want to the people of China?
  - hungryhobo 6y ago
    yes, isn't that the whole point of free speech?
    - loceng 6y ago
      It's naive if you don't consider boundaries or borders of systems and consequences of if there isn't equal reciprocity between those boundaries - there's a power dynamic imbalance that will occur, e.g. it's not an equal playing field - and so it's fair to prevent them access to your population that allows free speech. It's their decision/action that is preventing their free speech, and if they change their action to allow free speech for their population then they'd be allowed equal access to Americans et al; at the moment foreign bad actors do in fact have easy access to populations with free speech - mostly attempting to craft, influencing international narratives or instigate hate to destabilize society/democracy.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The Chinese government has its own foreign-language websites and even multiple foreign-language newspapers.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  I see people asking this question, let me flip it around: where is the guarantee (implicit or explicit) that in a free society we are owed a channel to broadcast a message?
  - mc32 6y ago
    I think when you set out to become ubiquitous, gobble up competitors in your space and advertise yourself in order to gain more followers to cement your network effects. It’s like denying someone electricity. Sure we can do without. But society is now set up such that not allowing someone to use electricity is beyond the pale. Social media has made themselves indispensable and as such they owe access to whomever they’ve extended access to, unless the users violate local laws.
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      I was hoping to find middle ground in this conversation but if you truly believe the ability to tweet or post on Facebook is indispensable, I’m not sure we will.
      - mc32 6y ago
        It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else, I think they will be indispensable. In any case, I’m willing to listen.
        eightysixfour 6y ago
        Alright: > It’s like denying someone electricity. In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument. > It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. So they're not now, but they want to be, so we need to treat them like they are? That's like saying we should apply monopoly laws to every company in a market because they're trying to grow. When Twitter has a monopoly on the distribution of speech, I'll agree with you. In the meantime, even without social media, there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind. As has been mentioned over and over the last few days, freedom of speech means you have the right to say it, not the right to broadcast it. > In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else I say this semi-sarcastically, but when I can't spend my money because I've been deplatformed from twitter, I screwed up more than them.
- Retric 6y ago
  The irony of that statement is the CCP couldn’t use Twitter in China as they had already blocked it. So, they must already use other channels by choice.
  - headShrinker 6y ago
    This really should be the top comment. China’s comments on our democracy are always filled with so much irony it’s laughable.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      It's equally ironic that we're celebrating as a similar Firewall is imposed on us, while criticizing theirs. It's not much of an improvement if we just have a privately owned Firewall.
      - headShrinker 6y ago
        Agreed. With each movement and gyration I feel a metaphorical boa-constrictor wrapping tighter and tighter around our freedoms. I can put myself on both sides of most arguments, while my emotional attachment is to a democratic socialist leaning. The implications for tech determining how, where, what and why to every aspect of our daily lives is deeply concerning. Freedom of speech has always had limits and those limits are essential to democracy. Those limits were deeply debated among legal scholars for decades before decisions were made. Now I feel we are making quick brash moves in a moment of excitement and drunkin power, with no judicial oversight. In our collective hangovers we will begin to realize the true ramifications of tech companies deciding what is fair speech and fair thought at its inception, way before a movement, momentum or Legal judicial oversight is even possible.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  - A press release. - Their own website. - (self-published) books and/or periodicals - Email
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mech422 6y ago
  The comment I was responding to seems to have been deleted, so I'm gonna leave this here: TBH, I don't know and I don't care... Twitter, FB, and even HN are not government agencies, and it's really getting tiresome to hear people complain they should act like one. I don't even use social media outside of imgur and HN. Its really getting annoying listening to whining about how so and so can't use their favorite echo chamber any more. What happened to the conservative stronghold position that companies can refuse service as they see fit? Hell, isn't jack a buddhist? Maybe he's just started banning stuff that offends his religious beliefs? (As far as I know, he's still the majority owner of twitter, so he can basically call the shots.) In short, there is no 'right to be on XXX' (FB, twitter, whatever) and private companies can and will de-platform you for a variety of reasons. ps - thanks for the link. Sounds more like trying to justify the Uygur persecution then anything else.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Weibo?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brighton36 6y ago
No one reads the tos. Clicks are not agreements.
- mech422 6y ago
  Guess they should start then ? Entering into a contract ('creating an account') is probably something you shouldn't do without reading the terms.
  - brighton36 6y ago
    Probably not. If 'everyone knows' the TOS is merely a conspiracy thrust upon 'us'. Then, it'll cease being enforceable. Respect for the rules is not required. It's merely a courtesy society offers, when the rules are 'fair'.
    - mech422 6y ago
      "laws are merely a conspiracy thrust upon us..." Good luck with that logic in your murder trial... :-P "copyright is merely a conspiracy thrust upon us", so its perfectly fine to pirate software. Also, any code I make public will be under terms _I_ find acceptable - what 'everyone knows' really doesn't factor into the equation. You're not entitled to set usage terms for my work. Oh, and respect for the rules IS required - or you get de-platformed. For examples see half of HN's front page :-P edit: formatting - need more coffee
      - bigbob2 6y ago
        I understand your point but I'm not sure what the TOS has to do with a murder trial... The parent never said anything about all laws being a conspiracy.
        mech422 6y ago
        The parent implied the mere fact that 'everyone knows' something is a 'conspiracy' is enough reason for it to 'cease being enforceable'. We have both civil and criminal laws, and I listed examples of both? edit: actually, I didn't...copyright is a criminal offense too, I think ? "up to 5 years in jail" ?? oh well, my bad.
Udik 6y ago
How did the tweet violate the TOS exactly?
- iso8859-1 6y ago
  The article linked by OP says Twitter did not explain it, but since Trump was banned for violation of the Glorification of Violence guideline, maybe it applies here too. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...
- Udik 6y ago
  Twitter spokesman Thrusday evening: "This Tweet is not in violation of our policies". Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-...

leereeves 6y ago

What channels could they use instead?

loceng 6y ago
Sorry but this is a moot point. The real question to ask is do you think it's a good idea or fair to give equal access to Americans and those in nations with free speech, when we're not allowed or able to say what we want to the people of China?
- hungryhobo 6y ago
  yes, isn't that the whole point of free speech?
  - loceng 6y ago
    It's naive if you don't consider boundaries or borders of systems and consequences of if there isn't equal reciprocity between those boundaries - there's a power dynamic imbalance that will occur, e.g. it's not an equal playing field - and so it's fair to prevent them access to your population that allows free speech. It's their decision/action that is preventing their free speech, and if they change their action to allow free speech for their population then they'd be allowed equal access to Americans et al; at the moment foreign bad actors do in fact have easy access to populations with free speech - mostly attempting to craft, influencing international narratives or instigate hate to destabilize society/democracy.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The Chinese government has its own foreign-language websites and even multiple foreign-language newspapers.
eightysixfour 6y ago
I see people asking this question, let me flip it around: where is the guarantee (implicit or explicit) that in a free society we are owed a channel to broadcast a message?
- mc32 6y ago
  I think when you set out to become ubiquitous, gobble up competitors in your space and advertise yourself in order to gain more followers to cement your network effects. It’s like denying someone electricity. Sure we can do without. But society is now set up such that not allowing someone to use electricity is beyond the pale. Social media has made themselves indispensable and as such they owe access to whomever they’ve extended access to, unless the users violate local laws.
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    I was hoping to find middle ground in this conversation but if you truly believe the ability to tweet or post on Facebook is indispensable, I’m not sure we will.
    - mc32 6y ago
      It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else, I think they will be indispensable. In any case, I’m willing to listen.
      - eightysixfour 6y ago
        Alright: > It’s like denying someone electricity. In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument. > It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. So they're not now, but they want to be, so we need to treat them like they are? That's like saying we should apply monopoly laws to every company in a market because they're trying to grow. When Twitter has a monopoly on the distribution of speech, I'll agree with you. In the meantime, even without social media, there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind. As has been mentioned over and over the last few days, freedom of speech means you have the right to say it, not the right to broadcast it. > In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else I say this semi-sarcastically, but when I can't spend my money because I've been deplatformed from twitter, I screwed up more than them.
Retric 6y ago
The irony of that statement is the CCP couldn’t use Twitter in China as they had already blocked it. So, they must already use other channels by choice.
- headShrinker 6y ago
  This really should be the top comment. China’s comments on our democracy are always filled with so much irony it’s laughable.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    It's equally ironic that we're celebrating as a similar Firewall is imposed on us, while criticizing theirs. It's not much of an improvement if we just have a privately owned Firewall.
    - headShrinker 6y ago
      Agreed. With each movement and gyration I feel a metaphorical boa-constrictor wrapping tighter and tighter around our freedoms. I can put myself on both sides of most arguments, while my emotional attachment is to a democratic socialist leaning. The implications for tech determining how, where, what and why to every aspect of our daily lives is deeply concerning. Freedom of speech has always had limits and those limits are essential to democracy. Those limits were deeply debated among legal scholars for decades before decisions were made. Now I feel we are making quick brash moves in a moment of excitement and drunkin power, with no judicial oversight. In our collective hangovers we will begin to realize the true ramifications of tech companies deciding what is fair speech and fair thought at its inception, way before a movement, momentum or Legal judicial oversight is even possible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Hnrobert42 6y ago
- A press release. - Their own website. - (self-published) books and/or periodicals - Email
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mech422 6y ago
The comment I was responding to seems to have been deleted, so I'm gonna leave this here: TBH, I don't know and I don't care... Twitter, FB, and even HN are not government agencies, and it's really getting tiresome to hear people complain they should act like one. I don't even use social media outside of imgur and HN. Its really getting annoying listening to whining about how so and so can't use their favorite echo chamber any more. What happened to the conservative stronghold position that companies can refuse service as they see fit? Hell, isn't jack a buddhist? Maybe he's just started banning stuff that offends his religious beliefs? (As far as I know, he's still the majority owner of twitter, so he can basically call the shots.) In short, there is no 'right to be on XXX' (FB, twitter, whatever) and private companies can and will de-platform you for a variety of reasons. ps - thanks for the link. Sounds more like trying to justify the Uygur persecution then anything else.
HideousKojima 6y ago
Weibo?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

brighton36 6y ago

No one reads the tos. Clicks are not agreements.

mech422 6y ago
Guess they should start then ? Entering into a contract ('creating an account') is probably something you shouldn't do without reading the terms.
- brighton36 6y ago
  Probably not. If 'everyone knows' the TOS is merely a conspiracy thrust upon 'us'. Then, it'll cease being enforceable. Respect for the rules is not required. It's merely a courtesy society offers, when the rules are 'fair'.
  - mech422 6y ago
    "laws are merely a conspiracy thrust upon us..." Good luck with that logic in your murder trial... :-P "copyright is merely a conspiracy thrust upon us", so its perfectly fine to pirate software. Also, any code I make public will be under terms _I_ find acceptable - what 'everyone knows' really doesn't factor into the equation. You're not entitled to set usage terms for my work. Oh, and respect for the rules IS required - or you get de-platformed. For examples see half of HN's front page :-P edit: formatting - need more coffee
    - bigbob2 6y ago
      I understand your point but I'm not sure what the TOS has to do with a murder trial... The parent never said anything about all laws being a conspiracy.
      - mech422 6y ago
        The parent implied the mere fact that 'everyone knows' something is a 'conspiracy' is enough reason for it to 'cease being enforceable'. We have both civil and criminal laws, and I listed examples of both? edit: actually, I didn't...copyright is a criminal offense too, I think ? "up to 5 years in jail" ?? oh well, my bad.

Udik 6y ago

How did the tweet violate the TOS exactly?

iso8859-1 6y ago
The article linked by OP says Twitter did not explain it, but since Trump was banned for violation of the Glorification of Violence guideline, maybe it applies here too. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification-of-violence https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...
Udik 6y ago
Twitter spokesman Thrusday evening: "This Tweet is not in violation of our policies". Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-...