4 ms·

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 sup

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]