5 ms·

I'm not on Facebook. I'm on Twitter. All Indian politicians are given special treatment on Twitter. When I flag comments by ordinary users, they get taken down

by qart 6y ago

I'm not on Facebook. I'm on Twitter. All Indian politicians are given special treatment on Twitter. When I flag comments by ordinary users, they get taken down pretty soon. I flagged a few videos of a politician inciting a beheading, but both he, and his videos are on Twitter. In that respect, Twitter (and Facebook) are no different from Indian law enforcement agencies. One set of rules for nobodies like me, a different set of rules for the "rulers". Ironic, because they are not supposed to be our rulers, but our servants.

Griffinsauce 6y ago
They made this pretty explicit for the former president of the US: anybody "newsworthy" (ie. has enough power to hurt the platform) has near free play around the rules. In contrast my personal opinion is that we should hold people in power to a higher standard.
- qwytw 6y ago
  I don't think content posted by elected officials should be moderated (except maybe in the most extreme cases). The society should have the right too see it and make their own conclusions about it. I bet a quite a few people would have had a better opinion of Trump, if Twitter actually removed his tweets where he made various untruthful and inciteful claims.
  - akudha 6y ago
    quite a few people would have had a better opinion of Trump, if Twitter actually removed his tweets where he made various untruthful This is a double edged sword. A lot of people will (and do) blindly believe anything their leader (Trump or someone else) says, no matter how stupid/wrong/evil it is. I guess you are assuming people are rational and that people have time/patience to carefully analyze the content they are consuming and separate truth from hysteria. The reality is that most people (left or right, religious or non-religious... doesn't matter) have already made up their minds and simply look for people who think alike, to rationalize the bubble they are in. Which the tech companies and media are happy to serve, as that is where the money is.
- buran77 6y ago
  It goes beyond newsworthy accounts and into what's in the best interest of the company. When I posted this [0] a couple of months ago if sounded far fetched for many. Facebook (and Twitter) will selectively apply any measure depending on whether it's in their best interest or not. Everything else is usually a rationalization of that outcome. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26195047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26195047 > They are removing some fake accounts and not others. > Some departments are routinely instructed to turn a blind eye to the actions of some but not others
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  In the US, political speech (of all types) is usually held to a looser standard (in the sense that it's harder to restrict) - which I think makes sense. We should hold our elected officials to a higher standard, but we probably do so through the mechanisms built into our laws. That being said... not all speech by political figures is political speech.
- snarf21 6y ago
  I agree but they are never going to hold those with the ability to cut off the money to a higher standard. Money talks.
thoweruo2434 6y ago
Context: https://twitter.com/DrJK_Murali/status/1381567386587852800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/DrJK_Murali/status/1381567386587852800?r... https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/aap-mla-amanatullah-khan-calls-for-beheading-of-yati-narsinghanand-saraswati-as-punishment-for-criticising-prophet-muhammad/ https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/aap-mla-amanatullah-khan-cal... I'd like to say this is related to "one" wing or the other, but it's not. International liberal media like the Guardian have consistently biased reporting where they report hate speech from the Indian pagans, while completely muting out similar messages from adherents of Islam and Christianity. Worse still the former tend to be simple rabble-rousing, while the latter often have had real consequences. See for instance, https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-post-mortem-report/ https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-post-m... In fact, barring a few indoctrinated people most folk I know are very aware of these biases - many such stories often find uniform coverage in "vernacular" media", and is in fact one of the reasons why, ironically, BJP gets votes. English speakers of the world, of course, are both pretentious of their own half-baked knowledge, and at the same time, and dangerously, have both the resources and a desperate, almost religious, need to affect change. No wonder they've destroyed much of the Middle East. Please don't bother India - you lot have done enough damage already.
- commoner 6y ago
  > OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news portal founded in 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal. The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque. > OpIndia is dedicated to criticism of what it considers "liberal media", and to support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutva ideology. According to University of Maryland researchers, OpIndia has shamed journalists it deems opposed to the BJP, and has alleged media bias against Hindus and the BJP. In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. IFCN-certified fact checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia
- selimthegrim 6y ago

by qart 6y ago

Griffinsauce 6y ago

They made this pretty explicit for the former president of the US: anybody "newsworthy" (ie. has enough power to hurt the platform) has near free play around the rules. In contrast my personal opinion is that we should hold people in power to a higher standard.

qwytw 6y ago
I don't think content posted by elected officials should be moderated (except maybe in the most extreme cases). The society should have the right too see it and make their own conclusions about it. I bet a quite a few people would have had a better opinion of Trump, if Twitter actually removed his tweets where he made various untruthful and inciteful claims.
- akudha 6y ago
  quite a few people would have had a better opinion of Trump, if Twitter actually removed his tweets where he made various untruthful This is a double edged sword. A lot of people will (and do) blindly believe anything their leader (Trump or someone else) says, no matter how stupid/wrong/evil it is. I guess you are assuming people are rational and that people have time/patience to carefully analyze the content they are consuming and separate truth from hysteria. The reality is that most people (left or right, religious or non-religious... doesn't matter) have already made up their minds and simply look for people who think alike, to rationalize the bubble they are in. Which the tech companies and media are happy to serve, as that is where the money is.
buran77 6y ago
It goes beyond newsworthy accounts and into what's in the best interest of the company. When I posted this [0] a couple of months ago if sounded far fetched for many. Facebook (and Twitter) will selectively apply any measure depending on whether it's in their best interest or not. Everything else is usually a rationalization of that outcome. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26195047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26195047 > They are removing some fake accounts and not others. > Some departments are routinely instructed to turn a blind eye to the actions of some but not others
icegreentea2 6y ago
In the US, political speech (of all types) is usually held to a looser standard (in the sense that it's harder to restrict) - which I think makes sense. We should hold our elected officials to a higher standard, but we probably do so through the mechanisms built into our laws. That being said... not all speech by political figures is political speech.
snarf21 6y ago
I agree but they are never going to hold those with the ability to cut off the money to a higher standard. Money talks.

thoweruo2434 6y ago

Context: https://twitter.com/DrJK_Murali/status/1381567386587852800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/DrJK_Murali/status/1381567386587852800?r... https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/aap-mla-amanatullah-khan-calls-for-beheading-of-yati-narsinghanand-saraswati-as-punishment-for-criticising-prophet-muhammad/ https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/aap-mla-amanatullah-khan-cal... I'd like to say this is related to "one" wing or the other, but it's not. International liberal media like the Guardian have consistently biased reporting where they report hate speech from the Indian pagans, while completely muting out similar messages from adherents of Islam and Christianity. Worse still the former tend to be simple rabble-rousing, while the latter often have had real consequences. See for instance, https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-post-mortem-report/ https://www.opindia.com/2019/10/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-post-m... In fact, barring a few indoctrinated people most folk I know are very aware of these biases - many such stories often find uniform coverage in "vernacular" media", and is in fact one of the reasons why, ironically, BJP gets votes. English speakers of the world, of course, are both pretentious of their own half-baked knowledge, and at the same time, and dangerously, have both the resources and a desperate, almost religious, need to affect change. No wonder they've destroyed much of the Middle East. Please don't bother India - you lot have done enough damage already.

commoner 6y ago
> OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news portal founded in 2014 by Rahul Raj and Kumar Kamal. The website has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque. > OpIndia is dedicated to criticism of what it considers "liberal media", and to support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindutva ideology. According to University of Maryland researchers, OpIndia has shamed journalists it deems opposed to the BJP, and has alleged media bias against Hindus and the BJP. In 2019, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) rejected OpIndia's application to be certified as a fact checker. IFCN-certified fact checkers identified 25 fake news stories and 14 misreported stories published by OpIndia from January 2018 to June 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpIndia
selimthegrim 6y ago