4 ms·

No. The U.S. 300 million citizen don’t have the monopoly on morals when 1 billion Indians have a different idea about them. So don’t be pretentious, adapt to lo

No. The U.S. 300 million citizen don’t have the monopoly on morals when 1 billion Indians have a different idea about them. So don’t be pretentious, adapt to local laws and let people figure out their own ideas about life. Maybe, just maybe, the U.S. has the wrong laws.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
1 billion Indians aren't all supporters of government censorship of criticism. If the US government enacted some ridiculous law, you would hope that US corporations would try to push back a bit, at least rhetorically, because you recognize that the state isn't its people. Why suddenly the different tone for India?
- input_sh 5y ago
  Plenty of countries in the world have a lax view on nudity, show it on TV, go to the beach naked, have a regulated sex work industry etc. Yet, since almost all large platforms and payment processors are American, good luck posting photos of sand dunes because some algorithm at Facebook might confuse it with woman's breasts, and I don't see anyone pushing back. Point being adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say in what's allowed in some country none of them stepped foot in.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view. We may just disagree on where that line should exist. If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?
    - input_sh 5y ago
      We don't have to play pretend, there are countries like Saudi Arabia where that's already a thing. Turns out Twitter happily complies. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi-lgbt-citizens https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi... The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.
    - sinyug 5y ago
      > If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? You might want to pick another example to make your point. Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Historically, Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. Unlike animals in heat who do it in public, human sex in India has generally been a private affair. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India
      - ehvatum 5y ago
        What Christian theocracy will put you to death, today, for being homosexual? Numerous Islamic government examples exist, yes. I’m looking for Christian, since that’s where you say the focus must be.
        sinyug 5y ago
        > since that’s where you say the focus must be. Not what I said. I simply asked him to pick an appropriate example instead of one that has no basis in reality.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        > no basis in reality. It's just a hypothetical that I put out there for rhetorical purposes. It doesn't have to be realistic. You can substitute India for another country (say, Saudi Arabia, like another poster did) if you think that realism is important. The argument will remain the same.
- true_religion 5y ago
  With India’s population size, it’s possible more people support the government than exist people in the entirety of the United States. Why are they wrong and Americans right?
dTal 5y ago
We are talking about freedom of speech here, not food regulations. Once it goes away, it doesn't come back. Where is the line between "culture war" and "moral imperative"? How far does moral relativism go? A country is gradually turning fascist - will you continue your hands-off policy even as they commit genocide? (A million Uighurs say yes unfortunately). Countries aren't wild animals, to be observed Attenborough-like but not interfered with. They're people. If free speech is good enough for me then it's damn well good enough for them.
- nirav72 5y ago
  A significant part of the world doesn't see what's good for you is good for them.
  - dTal 5y ago
    If they're forbidden from talking, how would we even know? Indians aren't an alien hive-mind, they're regular people like you and me, and until someone proves otherwise I'm going to assume they don't like being oppressed. Reality check - Twitter is censoring tweets critical of the government, at government request. Am I really supposed to believe that this government represents the people? Because it sounds less like "cultural differences" and more like bog standard authoritarianism.
fitzie 5y ago
I see rights being of intrinsic value how much a country, both its culture and regulators, protect them can be directly scored. you can argue what exactly those rights should be, and you can argue that a society can still be happy and productive without those rights, but you cannot argue that people have their rights when the gov't and their proxies in the business world suppresses them. all that being said, I suspect there is less policing of speech on twitter in India then what twitter does to discourse in the states.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fighterpilot 5y ago

1 billion Indians aren't all supporters of government censorship of criticism. If the US government enacted some ridiculous law, you would hope that US corporations would try to push back a bit, at least rhetorically, because you recognize that the state isn't its people. Why suddenly the different tone for India?

input_sh 5y ago
Plenty of countries in the world have a lax view on nudity, show it on TV, go to the beach naked, have a regulated sex work industry etc. Yet, since almost all large platforms and payment processors are American, good luck posting photos of sand dunes because some algorithm at Facebook might confuse it with woman's breasts, and I don't see anyone pushing back. Point being adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say in what's allowed in some country none of them stepped foot in.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  > adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view. We may just disagree on where that line should exist. If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?
  - input_sh 5y ago
    We don't have to play pretend, there are countries like Saudi Arabia where that's already a thing. Turns out Twitter happily complies. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi-lgbt-citizens https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi... The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? You might want to pick another example to make your point. Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Historically, Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. Unlike animals in heat who do it in public, human sex in India has generally been a private affair. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India
    - ehvatum 5y ago
      What Christian theocracy will put you to death, today, for being homosexual? Numerous Islamic government examples exist, yes. I’m looking for Christian, since that’s where you say the focus must be.
      - sinyug 5y ago
        > since that’s where you say the focus must be. Not what I said. I simply asked him to pick an appropriate example instead of one that has no basis in reality.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        > no basis in reality. It's just a hypothetical that I put out there for rhetorical purposes. It doesn't have to be realistic. You can substitute India for another country (say, Saudi Arabia, like another poster did) if you think that realism is important. The argument will remain the same.
true_religion 5y ago
With India’s population size, it’s possible more people support the government than exist people in the entirety of the United States. Why are they wrong and Americans right?

dTal 5y ago

We are talking about freedom of speech here, not food regulations. Once it goes away, it doesn't come back. Where is the line between "culture war" and "moral imperative"? How far does moral relativism go? A country is gradually turning fascist - will you continue your hands-off policy even as they commit genocide? (A million Uighurs say yes unfortunately). Countries aren't wild animals, to be observed Attenborough-like but not interfered with. They're people. If free speech is good enough for me then it's damn well good enough for them.

nirav72 5y ago
A significant part of the world doesn't see what's good for you is good for them.
- dTal 5y ago
  If they're forbidden from talking, how would we even know? Indians aren't an alien hive-mind, they're regular people like you and me, and until someone proves otherwise I'm going to assume they don't like being oppressed. Reality check - Twitter is censoring tweets critical of the government, at government request. Am I really supposed to believe that this government represents the people? Because it sounds less like "cultural differences" and more like bog standard authoritarianism.

fitzie 5y ago

I see rights being of intrinsic value how much a country, both its culture and regulators, protect them can be directly scored. you can argue what exactly those rights should be, and you can argue that a society can still be happy and productive without those rights, but you cannot argue that people have their rights when the gov't and their proxies in the business world suppresses them. all that being said, I suspect there is less policing of speech on twitter in India then what twitter does to discourse in the states.