5 ms·

It's an irony how American companies try circumvents another country's law (regardless of whether you call it censorship or not, it is still a law) and boast ab

It's an irony how American companies try circumvents another country's law (regardless of whether you call it censorship or not, it is still a law) and boast about it. Yet, in the US these companies help the mainstream narrative to enforce censorship by banning (Google and Apple App market) or simply not offering other point of views basic hosting services (AWS). I am an Iranian and don't agree with all of our government actions but I can clearly see a tech neo-colonialism/neo-imperialism here. I am sure Signal's intention and people wanting to help is genuinely good but this does not change this double-standard. I would like to see your supportive reaction if an Iranian company offers hosting to Parler. I imagine you would call it foreign intervention!

pre 6y ago
Well. A Russian company, DDos-Guard, did host Parler in the end didn't they? And sure enough, the FBI is investigating. Signal is a charity rather than a company, but dunno if that makes any actual difference.
reactspa 6y ago
Am honestly not trolling here although it will sound like it: Can someone please explain to me why it's a OK to reconnect Iranians to Signal, but not Trump supporters to Twitter (the ones censored and banned by Twitter)?
- thw0rted 6y ago
  They're completely unrelated examples. I'll try to explain why. Iran's (authoritarian, human-rights-abusing) government wants to prevent citizens from communicating with each other using tools that are resistant to interception by their secret police. HN supports the basic human right to privacy, and thus wants to help Iranians circumvent unjust laws or government actions. White supremacists (who happen to support Trump, because duh) are being banned by Twitter -- a company, notably distinct from a government, and thus incapable of "censoring" anything. This prevents them from using Twitter's platform to publish hate speech and (arguably illegal, definitely unjust) calls to violence. HN supports the right of a company to decide who can publish content on their platform and agrees that it's cool to tell racists that they aren't welcome there.
- beirut_bootleg 6y ago
  Because Signal didn't block Iran? This is false equivalence.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scaramanga 6y ago
  Hi, glad to help. The answer is that it depends on what your values are. If you want to reconnect people to twitter (a publishing platform) who have been banned for racist hate speech or inciting violence, and the laws in your jurisdiction permit you to do that. Then you can do that without going to jail. If you want to reconnect people to signal (a personal communications tool) who have been disconnected from it due to reasons best understood by the Iranian government, an the laws in your jurisdiction permit you to do that. Then you can do that without going to jail. It's really just a value judgement whether you consider giving a publishing platform to racists against the will of said publishing platform is a worthwhile activity. And, again, it's just a value judgement whether you consider giving the right to privately communicate back to Iranians who have been, effectively, deprived of it by connecting them to a service which will willingly have them is a worthwhile activity. Your values may differ from mine. And both my and your values could differ from the majority of HN users. My experience is that perfect alignments of values rarely, if ever, occur between any two individuals.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    It goes way way beyond inciting violence. For example, Facebook recently shut down the page of Socialist Workers Party in Britain. Facebook suspended well known libertarian Ron Paul. Timer blocked links to the New York Post Joe and Hunter Biden exposé and locked accounts that shared it.
    - scaramanga 6y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, sadly, it would appear that those are the values of Facebook and Twitter. Insofar as an institution like a corporation can be said to possess "values" anyway... But let's just assume we both dislike the editorial policies of Twitter. A pretty safe assumption, I think :) Will spamming Twitter via a network of TLS proxies do anything to change their editorial policy to something more preferable to you or I? Will setting up a network of TLS proxies to Signal give Iranians access to Signal? Perhaps the answer to those two questions will give some indication as to what the practical (and moral) differences are. For my two pence. I think anyone should be allowed to use a phone for any purpose, and I accept that a tap-proof phone can be used to commit crimes. I don't think Osama Bin Laden should be able to take out a page in the new york times to give his hot take on his "hugely successful" WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these examples map directly to the point in hand, but I am just pointing out that they are different media and the balance between freedom of speech and public decency are struck differently and that tactics for finding political solutions to censorship in each case might look different, too.
hutzlibu 6y ago
"I would like to see your supportive reaction if an Iranian company offers hosting to Parler. " This is a hacker forum and not a US foreign ministry praise board, even though it is mainly US based. In other words, I doubt the reaction here would be rage, if a iranian company would do that. Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"?
- doublestandard2 6y ago
  Fair enough, you have a good point. By, "you" I mean a tech person who is supportive of Signal action and is willing to setup a proxy without realizing that this is circumventing another country's law. I agree I could have said it more clearly and less emotionally.
  - Normille 6y ago
    I think you expressed it really well. Double standards and hypocrisy seem to be one trait that Americans inherited from their British founders.
- alentist 6y ago
  > Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"? There are many comments on previous HN threads defending censorship and information restriction, precisely as the GP has described it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    What you call “defending censorship” is perhaps better described as “defending free speech”. Forced speech is not free speech.
throwaway19937 6y ago
> I would like to see your supportive reaction if an Iranian company offers hosting to Parler. I imagine you would call it foreign intervention! It's fine with me if an Iranian company offers to host Parler. Having said that, I'm also in favor of prosecuting US companies that violate any sanctions we have against Iran.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Why are you in favor of sanctions on Iran? I've never really heard a good argument. It mostly tends to be "Well they say things I don't like that scare me, like Death to America" so very anti free speech type arguments.
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    I vouched for this post but you appear to be shadow-banned. > Why are you in favor of sanctions on Iran? My position isn't that Iranian sanctions are a good idea - I don't yet have an informed opinion about them. We have laws against US companies trading with Iran and I believe in the rule of law as a general principle.
Krasnol 6y ago
> Yet, in the US these companies help the mainstream narrative to enforce censorship by banning Why THESE companies? Where did Signal do this? Or are all US companies the same entity to you?
- doublestandard2 6y ago
  I describe my sentiment more precisely. By "these companies" I refer to entities or even individuals who take a very simplistic view toward this issue (Blocking of Signal by Iranian government). In this simplistic viewpoint, issues in 3rd world countries (even this naming is condescending) are assumed to be evident. In this case an evil government versus oppressed people who can not even communicate with each other freely. So 'we' good people must help these poor people against their oppressive government. This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have proposed laws to ban it or enforcing other mechanisms to circumvent by law enforcement such as backdoors. I mentioned the US as an example, because of Signal is operating under US jurisdiction. Moreover, the recent events in the US demonstrated that how a supposedly stable democracy is vulnerable to chaos. In this situation the tech companies decided to limit the communication of people or access to their platform for the greater good (according to them). I am not stating whether this is good or bad. I just want to point out that the issue is complex, nuanced and needs debate in the society. Keep in mind that the US is a superpower surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries and has no serious external threat. This is in contrast to Iran which is in a chaotic region and surrounded by the US military bases. It has suffered wars and coup in its recent history. It is currently under harsh economic sanctions with a possible goal of people revolting. The Iranian government has reasons to be paranoid and fearful that Signal can be used to organize violent demonstration. They cannot even demand information regarding criminal cases such as drug trafficking from these tech companies. In the US the decision of giving access to tools and platforms is out-sourced to companies but in most part of the world governments make these kind of policies (again not necessarily good or bad). I don't have a solution to these problems and I am not trying to say that we have an equivalence here. What I am expecting is a more nuanced and sophisticated perspective toward the issue.
  - 6y ago

pre 6y ago

Well. A Russian company, DDos-Guard, did host Parler in the end didn't they? And sure enough, the FBI is investigating. Signal is a charity rather than a company, but dunno if that makes any actual difference.

reactspa 6y ago

Am honestly not trolling here although it will sound like it: Can someone please explain to me why it's a OK to reconnect Iranians to Signal, but not Trump supporters to Twitter (the ones censored and banned by Twitter)?

thw0rted 6y ago
They're completely unrelated examples. I'll try to explain why. Iran's (authoritarian, human-rights-abusing) government wants to prevent citizens from communicating with each other using tools that are resistant to interception by their secret police. HN supports the basic human right to privacy, and thus wants to help Iranians circumvent unjust laws or government actions. White supremacists (who happen to support Trump, because duh) are being banned by Twitter -- a company, notably distinct from a government, and thus incapable of "censoring" anything. This prevents them from using Twitter's platform to publish hate speech and (arguably illegal, definitely unjust) calls to violence. HN supports the right of a company to decide who can publish content on their platform and agrees that it's cool to tell racists that they aren't welcome there.
beirut_bootleg 6y ago
Because Signal didn't block Iran? This is false equivalence.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scaramanga 6y ago
Hi, glad to help. The answer is that it depends on what your values are. If you want to reconnect people to twitter (a publishing platform) who have been banned for racist hate speech or inciting violence, and the laws in your jurisdiction permit you to do that. Then you can do that without going to jail. If you want to reconnect people to signal (a personal communications tool) who have been disconnected from it due to reasons best understood by the Iranian government, an the laws in your jurisdiction permit you to do that. Then you can do that without going to jail. It's really just a value judgement whether you consider giving a publishing platform to racists against the will of said publishing platform is a worthwhile activity. And, again, it's just a value judgement whether you consider giving the right to privately communicate back to Iranians who have been, effectively, deprived of it by connecting them to a service which will willingly have them is a worthwhile activity. Your values may differ from mine. And both my and your values could differ from the majority of HN users. My experience is that perfect alignments of values rarely, if ever, occur between any two individuals.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  It goes way way beyond inciting violence. For example, Facebook recently shut down the page of Socialist Workers Party in Britain. Facebook suspended well known libertarian Ron Paul. Timer blocked links to the New York Post Joe and Hunter Biden exposé and locked accounts that shared it.
  - scaramanga 6y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, sadly, it would appear that those are the values of Facebook and Twitter. Insofar as an institution like a corporation can be said to possess "values" anyway... But let's just assume we both dislike the editorial policies of Twitter. A pretty safe assumption, I think :) Will spamming Twitter via a network of TLS proxies do anything to change their editorial policy to something more preferable to you or I? Will setting up a network of TLS proxies to Signal give Iranians access to Signal? Perhaps the answer to those two questions will give some indication as to what the practical (and moral) differences are. For my two pence. I think anyone should be allowed to use a phone for any purpose, and I accept that a tap-proof phone can be used to commit crimes. I don't think Osama Bin Laden should be able to take out a page in the new york times to give his hot take on his "hugely successful" WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these examples map directly to the point in hand, but I am just pointing out that they are different media and the balance between freedom of speech and public decency are struck differently and that tactics for finding political solutions to censorship in each case might look different, too.

hutzlibu 6y ago

"I would like to see your supportive reaction if an Iranian company offers hosting to Parler. " This is a hacker forum and not a US foreign ministry praise board, even though it is mainly US based. In other words, I doubt the reaction here would be rage, if a iranian company would do that. Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"?

doublestandard2 6y ago
Fair enough, you have a good point. By, "you" I mean a tech person who is supportive of Signal action and is willing to setup a proxy without realizing that this is circumventing another country's law. I agree I could have said it more clearly and less emotionally.
- Normille 6y ago
  I think you expressed it really well. Double standards and hypocrisy seem to be one trait that Americans inherited from their British founders.
alentist 6y ago
> Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"? There are many comments on previous HN threads defending censorship and information restriction, precisely as the GP has described it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038
- ryanlol 6y ago
  What you call “defending censorship” is perhaps better described as “defending free speech”. Forced speech is not free speech.

throwaway19937 6y ago

> I would like to see your supportive reaction if an Iranian company offers hosting to Parler. I imagine you would call it foreign intervention! It's fine with me if an Iranian company offers to host Parler. Having said that, I'm also in favor of prosecuting US companies that violate any sanctions we have against Iran.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Why are you in favor of sanctions on Iran? I've never really heard a good argument. It mostly tends to be "Well they say things I don't like that scare me, like Death to America" so very anti free speech type arguments.
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  I vouched for this post but you appear to be shadow-banned. > Why are you in favor of sanctions on Iran? My position isn't that Iranian sanctions are a good idea - I don't yet have an informed opinion about them. We have laws against US companies trading with Iran and I believe in the rule of law as a general principle.

Krasnol 6y ago

> Yet, in the US these companies help the mainstream narrative to enforce censorship by banning Why THESE companies? Where did Signal do this? Or are all US companies the same entity to you?

doublestandard2 6y ago
I describe my sentiment more precisely. By "these companies" I refer to entities or even individuals who take a very simplistic view toward this issue (Blocking of Signal by Iranian government). In this simplistic viewpoint, issues in 3rd world countries (even this naming is condescending) are assumed to be evident. In this case an evil government versus oppressed people who can not even communicate with each other freely. So 'we' good people must help these poor people against their oppressive government. This is in contrast to a much more nuanced view of the issues in the west. End-to-end encryption is a debated issue in the US and EU and legislators have proposed laws to ban it or enforcing other mechanisms to circumvent by law enforcement such as backdoors. I mentioned the US as an example, because of Signal is operating under US jurisdiction. Moreover, the recent events in the US demonstrated that how a supposedly stable democracy is vulnerable to chaos. In this situation the tech companies decided to limit the communication of people or access to their platform for the greater good (according to them). I am not stating whether this is good or bad. I just want to point out that the issue is complex, nuanced and needs debate in the society. Keep in mind that the US is a superpower surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries and has no serious external threat. This is in contrast to Iran which is in a chaotic region and surrounded by the US military bases. It has suffered wars and coup in its recent history. It is currently under harsh economic sanctions with a possible goal of people revolting. The Iranian government has reasons to be paranoid and fearful that Signal can be used to organize violent demonstration. They cannot even demand information regarding criminal cases such as drug trafficking from these tech companies. In the US the decision of giving access to tools and platforms is out-sourced to companies but in most part of the world governments make these kind of policies (again not necessarily good or bad). I don't have a solution to these problems and I am not trying to say that we have an equivalence here. What I am expecting is a more nuanced and sophisticated perspective toward the issue.
- 6y ago