4 ms·

As someone who understands English as well, yeah, I have to concur that social media giants like Twitter have gotten more powerful than necessary. The law is ju

As someone who understands English as well, yeah, I have to concur that social media giants like Twitter have gotten more powerful than necessary. The law is just right, and at the right time, nothing stupid about it.

tejasgarde 6y ago
Agree Social media platforms gotten more powerful than necessary. Also Saying new laws are suppressing freedom of speech is not enough , for sake of valid argument one must point out which clause/sub clause of the said law mentions this suppression.
- mayuresh 6y ago
  I am not at all of the opinion that the new laws suppress freedom of speech. I was countering the previous comment using sarcasm as a means to convey the futility of their argument.
addicted 6y ago
Except the law does nothing to restrict social media companies and everything to restrict people on social media. Someone upstream made a ridiculous comparison to Donald Trump, whose Twitter was shut down because he had just incited violence. Well that was the extent of what was or could be done to him. With this law, and the way the current Indian government acts, your Twitter shutting down would be the least of your worries. The government would send its goons in uniform to arrest you, probably illegally (the way the 20 year old activist was illegally arrested, then illegally transported to a different state by the police so she could be denied bail in a friendlier jurisdiction), denied bail for months at end, unless they are the lucky few whose bail application reaches a higher court, which hasn’t been as ridiculous as the lower courts yet, beaten up, have the internet cut off, etc. The current Indian government deserves absolutely no benefit of doubt because they continue to enact anti democratic measures, while destroying the economy, even though they were lectured solely on promises of improving the economy (their destruction of the economy began well before the pandemic...Dec 2016 to be precise...just look at a GDP growth chart and it peaks in Dec 2016 and makes an abrupt turn going from increasing growth to decreasing growth right then. Anyone with a passing knowledge of India knows which disastrous, and completely politically motivated decision ruined the futures of hundreds of millions of people).
- mayuresh 6y ago
  Not really. The law is not about restricting anyone, but rather about making media houses more accountable by making them store information (for a limited time) regarding the content publishers and furnishing it when requested within that time frame. That 20 year old activist (Disha Ravi) you refer was arrested because she was clearly involved (via the document shared by Greta Thunberg) in seditious activity towards the sovereign state of India, nothing illegal or unethical about that I guess! She was carted off to a different state because the outcome of her illicit activities could have led to more violence in that other state hence it would be apt that she face the courts within that state's jurisdiction. There has been not a single incident of anti-democratic measure from the current Indian government, it would be more than interesting if you could provide rational, logical and judicially verifiable information to counter that. From your tone and attitude, it looks like you have some kind of unwarranted grudge against the current government, most probably because you are a crony of the Congress who's sitting in the opposition, playing every game possible to topple the good natured environment created by the currently in power BJP government.

tejasgarde 6y ago

Agree Social media platforms gotten more powerful than necessary. Also Saying new laws are suppressing freedom of speech is not enough , for sake of valid argument one must point out which clause/sub clause of the said law mentions this suppression.

mayuresh 6y ago
I am not at all of the opinion that the new laws suppress freedom of speech. I was countering the previous comment using sarcasm as a means to convey the futility of their argument.

addicted 6y ago

Except the law does nothing to restrict social media companies and everything to restrict people on social media. Someone upstream made a ridiculous comparison to Donald Trump, whose Twitter was shut down because he had just incited violence. Well that was the extent of what was or could be done to him. With this law, and the way the current Indian government acts, your Twitter shutting down would be the least of your worries. The government would send its goons in uniform to arrest you, probably illegally (the way the 20 year old activist was illegally arrested, then illegally transported to a different state by the police so she could be denied bail in a friendlier jurisdiction), denied bail for months at end, unless they are the lucky few whose bail application reaches a higher court, which hasn’t been as ridiculous as the lower courts yet, beaten up, have the internet cut off, etc. The current Indian government deserves absolutely no benefit of doubt because they continue to enact anti democratic measures, while destroying the economy, even though they were lectured solely on promises of improving the economy (their destruction of the economy began well before the pandemic...Dec 2016 to be precise...just look at a GDP growth chart and it peaks in Dec 2016 and makes an abrupt turn going from increasing growth to decreasing growth right then. Anyone with a passing knowledge of India knows which disastrous, and completely politically motivated decision ruined the futures of hundreds of millions of people).

mayuresh 6y ago
Not really. The law is not about restricting anyone, but rather about making media houses more accountable by making them store information (for a limited time) regarding the content publishers and furnishing it when requested within that time frame. That 20 year old activist (Disha Ravi) you refer was arrested because she was clearly involved (via the document shared by Greta Thunberg) in seditious activity towards the sovereign state of India, nothing illegal or unethical about that I guess! She was carted off to a different state because the outcome of her illicit activities could have led to more violence in that other state hence it would be apt that she face the courts within that state's jurisdiction. There has been not a single incident of anti-democratic measure from the current Indian government, it would be more than interesting if you could provide rational, logical and judicially verifiable information to counter that. From your tone and attitude, it looks like you have some kind of unwarranted grudge against the current government, most probably because you are a crony of the Congress who's sitting in the opposition, playing every game possible to topple the good natured environment created by the currently in power BJP government.