7 ms·

This is absurd. Twitter etc are private companies and can do what they want wrt their user's accounts. If they don't want their far-right politicians getting ce

This is absurd. Twitter etc are private companies and can do what they want wrt their user's accounts. If they don't want their far-right politicians getting censored, then they can ban those platforms from the country completely. As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

wnnzl 6y ago
of course, you can always create your own social platform, and then if some hosting company decides to ban you, you can always create your own, and have own internet as well right?
- unarmed-canary 6y ago
  Time to go to Neocities? I know they're a company subject to the same laws of the countries in which they operate but it seems like a suggestion to go back to that (which I've seen Linux-y Youtubers suggest) but it's an old method of solution to a different problem Geocities was set up to solve.
- eertami 6y ago
  Surely then it is much simpler/cheaper to ban fascists and delete content that incites violence? Unless of course... you aren't really a social platform, and what you really want to be is a fascism platform. Parler pretending to be social media is transparent as glass. There's a fabricated narrative that "right wing ideas" are being censored which is simply untrue. Twitter does not care if you post that you think healthcare should be private. But Twitter obviously does care when people start spreading objectively false information with the express aim of inciting violence.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
Twitter can cease offering service in Poland if they don’t like it. Poland has (wisely) decided social media is like telephones and you can’t stop providing service because of what customers say, as long as it is legal. Good for them. Poland is a sovereign country — Twitter doesn’t get to tell them how to act. That’s “tail wags dog”. Social media companies blatantly exerted themselves as political entities — and now they’re facing “common carrier” regulation from existing political entities who don’t like that. Again, if Twitter is uncomfortable being a common carrier for Polish social media — they’re free to exit the market and offer their services elsewhere.
OneGuy123 6y ago
This is a naive argument: the "X is a private company and can do anything they want" is completely wrong when you can affect hundreds of millions of people with a few click through your platform. Once a company can affect X million+ people they become a direct manipulator of societal/democratic opinion.
jopsen 6y ago
> they can ban those platforms from the country completely. Can they do that without leaving the EU?
- pelliphant 6y ago
  It would go against eu-law, but they can still do it, it haven't stopped them before....
  - jopsen 6y ago
    Yeah, my point is that if you start messing with free of speech, I think other EU countries will have a lot less patience. So far, they've mostly been messing around with environmental rulings, etc. not so much fundamental freedoms.
latch 6y ago
Poland is a country. They aren't responsible for upholding US law. They can do what they want to companies that decide to operate in Poland. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, they will - unless said companies stop operating there.
- murphy1312 6y ago
  once suppose the polish politician says something that is not allowed in other countries, so for example facebook has to delete it. but in poland it must not be "censored". what should happen then? i think smaller companys will have start geo/ip blocking countries then. great.
  - trhway 6y ago
    well, we're already there. For example according to the Ukranian laws the Crimea is a part of Ukraine and according to the Russian laws - part of Russia, and you really don't want to violate those very politically sensitive laws in either country, so: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754/google-maps-displays-crimean-border-differently-in-russia-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754... "Google Maps Displays Crimean Border Differently In Russia, U.S."
- klunger 6y ago
  ok. This is basically what I said, so it seems like I did not explain it well enough. It's like what Google did in China. They did not want to agree to the censorship terms imposed by the Chinese government so they stopped operating there. (It looks like they are reversing course on this now and may release a censored version soon, but that is neither here nor there) The Polish government cannot make Twitter do something it does not want to and still permit it to operate in the country. They will have to ban it outright if Twitter does not agree to their terms.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    The Polish government can make Twitter choose: do this, or face the consequences. Consequences being getting out, or facing fines, or whatever. What Twitter wants is irrelevant if it's not within what the local government wants. There's nothing absurd about that.
synnejye 6y ago
No, this is absurd. So you would let all media companies censor someone "because they don't like him"? The only reason you trust private media companies is because they are supposed to be as neutral as possible, not political. If not neutral, then perhaps society should start treating them for what they really are - private political machines. Furthermore censorship is stupid. You might like it when it's Trump getting censored, but you wont be laughing once the censorship comes back and hits you. Free speech fuck yes.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  That is a very american take on things... I am european and I have the exact opposite view: Public entities are supposed to be neutral, private ones are not.
  - synnejye 6y ago
    Well, I am from Europe... I disagree. :)
  - tremon 6y ago
    Public entities have no obligation to be neutral, in fact quite the opposite: many political parties and labor unions are public entities, and their non-neutrality is the main reason for their existence.
- Speednet 6y ago
  Thank you synnejye, you have hit the nail on the head.
illuminati1911 6y ago
This comment is beyond ridiculous. Private American corporations are not above law or democratically elected governments. This is not any different than GDPR or other regulations. I think the difference is that unlike spoiled American "Bernie Sanders voter"-generation, Polish people still remember what it's like to live under a far-left censorship and simply do not want to experience that again.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
schlupa 6y ago
A restaurant is a private company and if they don't want to serve blacks and jews they can completely do it. You see now how absurd that argument is?
- stephenr 6y ago
  Racial discrimination is a crime. No one has been banned from Twitter for being black, or jewish. You see now how absurd that argument is? If you go into a restaurant and start screaming at people that the election was rigged, or waving a nazi flag, or telling everyone they should storm the kitchen to demand gluten free pasta, they will kick you the fuck out.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Racial discrimination is a crime. And what makes it so? The law, I presume? If so, then "censoring a user" is equally a crime, because this Polish law says so.
- yokaze 6y ago
  A restaurant is a private company and if a customer is abusive and they don't want to serve them they can completely do it. The argument is not absurd, it only has its limitations and is not absolute. You have shown one of the limitations: Discrimination based on identity is one of them.
- jusssi 6y ago
  Speech is voluntary. Having been born a black or a jew (at least for the genetics) is not. Edit: more generally, this is something you are vs something you did. The latter is widely considered as acceptable criterion for revoking your privileges or rights.
  - bobthechef 6y ago
    That something is voluntary is irrelevant. It's a question of harm. If some group of people were to have green skin, and green skin emitted deadly substances on its own, then this would be involuntary. Should you ban such people from bars, etc?
rriepe 6y ago
The Polish fought the Nazis and the Soviets for this cake, though.
franczesko 6y ago
The recent big tech actions call for regulation. The main question is, who is responsible for the content published in specific mediums - users or platforms? If they put themselves in a position of publishers, then they should fall under specific laws accordingly.
golemiprague 6y ago
They can do what they want because that's the law, if the Polish government change the law then they can't. In the US there are also laws regarding discrimination based on race or gender or whatever and private companies must abide by those laws, so it is not that far fetched. The only thing the Polish government add is disallowing discrimination based on opinion and dealing with criminal speech by going to the police, not by being the court and executioner.
orange_tee 6y ago
EU would very likely be delighted to have an excuse to ban Twitter and start their own clone.
inglor_cz 6y ago
One of the reasons why laws actually even exist is to limit the freedom of private actors to do what they want. You, I and many others actually cannot do whatever we want, even on our own property. It is true that the software world isn't used to the same level of regulation as manufacturing or agriculture, so the idea of application of, say, antitrust laws to digital giants seems unusual to software people.

wnnzl 6y ago

of course, you can always create your own social platform, and then if some hosting company decides to ban you, you can always create your own, and have own internet as well right?

unarmed-canary 6y ago
Time to go to Neocities? I know they're a company subject to the same laws of the countries in which they operate but it seems like a suggestion to go back to that (which I've seen Linux-y Youtubers suggest) but it's an old method of solution to a different problem Geocities was set up to solve.
eertami 6y ago
Surely then it is much simpler/cheaper to ban fascists and delete content that incites violence? Unless of course... you aren't really a social platform, and what you really want to be is a fascism platform. Parler pretending to be social media is transparent as glass. There's a fabricated narrative that "right wing ideas" are being censored which is simply untrue. Twitter does not care if you post that you think healthcare should be private. But Twitter obviously does care when people start spreading objectively false information with the express aim of inciting violence.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

Twitter can cease offering service in Poland if they don’t like it. Poland has (wisely) decided social media is like telephones and you can’t stop providing service because of what customers say, as long as it is legal. Good for them. Poland is a sovereign country — Twitter doesn’t get to tell them how to act. That’s “tail wags dog”. Social media companies blatantly exerted themselves as political entities — and now they’re facing “common carrier” regulation from existing political entities who don’t like that. Again, if Twitter is uncomfortable being a common carrier for Polish social media — they’re free to exit the market and offer their services elsewhere.

OneGuy123 6y ago

This is a naive argument: the "X is a private company and can do anything they want" is completely wrong when you can affect hundreds of millions of people with a few click through your platform. Once a company can affect X million+ people they become a direct manipulator of societal/democratic opinion.

jopsen 6y ago

> they can ban those platforms from the country completely. Can they do that without leaving the EU?

pelliphant 6y ago
It would go against eu-law, but they can still do it, it haven't stopped them before....
- jopsen 6y ago
  Yeah, my point is that if you start messing with free of speech, I think other EU countries will have a lot less patience. So far, they've mostly been messing around with environmental rulings, etc. not so much fundamental freedoms.

latch 6y ago

Poland is a country. They aren't responsible for upholding US law. They can do what they want to companies that decide to operate in Poland. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, they will - unless said companies stop operating there.

murphy1312 6y ago
once suppose the polish politician says something that is not allowed in other countries, so for example facebook has to delete it. but in poland it must not be "censored". what should happen then? i think smaller companys will have start geo/ip blocking countries then. great.
- trhway 6y ago
  well, we're already there. For example according to the Ukranian laws the Crimea is a part of Ukraine and according to the Russian laws - part of Russia, and you really don't want to violate those very politically sensitive laws in either country, so: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754/google-maps-displays-crimean-border-differently-in-russia-u-s https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754... "Google Maps Displays Crimean Border Differently In Russia, U.S."
klunger 6y ago
ok. This is basically what I said, so it seems like I did not explain it well enough. It's like what Google did in China. They did not want to agree to the censorship terms imposed by the Chinese government so they stopped operating there. (It looks like they are reversing course on this now and may release a censored version soon, but that is neither here nor there) The Polish government cannot make Twitter do something it does not want to and still permit it to operate in the country. They will have to ban it outright if Twitter does not agree to their terms.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  The Polish government can make Twitter choose: do this, or face the consequences. Consequences being getting out, or facing fines, or whatever. What Twitter wants is irrelevant if it's not within what the local government wants. There's nothing absurd about that.

synnejye 6y ago

No, this is absurd. So you would let all media companies censor someone "because they don't like him"? The only reason you trust private media companies is because they are supposed to be as neutral as possible, not political. If not neutral, then perhaps society should start treating them for what they really are - private political machines. Furthermore censorship is stupid. You might like it when it's Trump getting censored, but you wont be laughing once the censorship comes back and hits you. Free speech fuck yes.

pelliphant 6y ago
That is a very american take on things... I am european and I have the exact opposite view: Public entities are supposed to be neutral, private ones are not.
- synnejye 6y ago
  Well, I am from Europe... I disagree. :)
- tremon 6y ago
  Public entities have no obligation to be neutral, in fact quite the opposite: many political parties and labor unions are public entities, and their non-neutrality is the main reason for their existence.
Speednet 6y ago
Thank you synnejye, you have hit the nail on the head.

illuminati1911 6y ago

This comment is beyond ridiculous. Private American corporations are not above law or democratically elected governments. This is not any different than GDPR or other regulations. I think the difference is that unlike spoiled American "Bernie Sanders voter"-generation, Polish people still remember what it's like to live under a far-left censorship and simply do not want to experience that again.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

schlupa 6y ago

A restaurant is a private company and if they don't want to serve blacks and jews they can completely do it. You see now how absurd that argument is?

stephenr 6y ago
Racial discrimination is a crime. No one has been banned from Twitter for being black, or jewish. You see now how absurd that argument is? If you go into a restaurant and start screaming at people that the election was rigged, or waving a nazi flag, or telling everyone they should storm the kitchen to demand gluten free pasta, they will kick you the fuck out.
- tremon 6y ago
  Racial discrimination is a crime. And what makes it so? The law, I presume? If so, then "censoring a user" is equally a crime, because this Polish law says so.
yokaze 6y ago
A restaurant is a private company and if a customer is abusive and they don't want to serve them they can completely do it. The argument is not absurd, it only has its limitations and is not absolute. You have shown one of the limitations: Discrimination based on identity is one of them.
jusssi 6y ago
Speech is voluntary. Having been born a black or a jew (at least for the genetics) is not. Edit: more generally, this is something you are vs something you did. The latter is widely considered as acceptable criterion for revoking your privileges or rights.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  That something is voluntary is irrelevant. It's a question of harm. If some group of people were to have green skin, and green skin emitted deadly substances on its own, then this would be involuntary. Should you ban such people from bars, etc?

rriepe 6y ago

The Polish fought the Nazis and the Soviets for this cake, though.

franczesko 6y ago

The recent big tech actions call for regulation. The main question is, who is responsible for the content published in specific mediums - users or platforms? If they put themselves in a position of publishers, then they should fall under specific laws accordingly.

golemiprague 6y ago

They can do what they want because that's the law, if the Polish government change the law then they can't. In the US there are also laws regarding discrimination based on race or gender or whatever and private companies must abide by those laws, so it is not that far fetched. The only thing the Polish government add is disallowing discrimination based on opinion and dealing with criminal speech by going to the police, not by being the court and executioner.

orange_tee 6y ago

EU would very likely be delighted to have an excuse to ban Twitter and start their own clone.

inglor_cz 6y ago

One of the reasons why laws actually even exist is to limit the freedom of private actors to do what they want. You, I and many others actually cannot do whatever we want, even on our own property. It is true that the software world isn't used to the same level of regulation as manufacturing or agriculture, so the idea of application of, say, antitrust laws to digital giants seems unusual to software people.