3 ms·
Banning == censorship, are you sure you want that? Not from India but personally I'd much rather my government not set such precedents and not have such power
by dheera 5y ago
Banning == censorship, are you sure you want that?
Not from India but personally I'd much rather my government not set such precedents and not have such power to block websites. Next thing you know they'll be blocking credible sites to spread their own misinformation agenda.
- boruto 5y agoDo you have Independent judiciary and media in your country?
- dheera 5y agoI'm in the US, and although there are lots of things broken with the American media and government, I have full access to foreign media from anywhere in the world; no internet sites are censored. So yes, I have independent media, because I can access the entire world's media and choose what I look at.
- boruto 5y agoThen how does the below statement workout. > Next thing you know they'll be blocking credible sites to spread their own misinformation agenda. I assume courts will act against it, So that is not really a complaint.
- dheera 5y ago> I assume courts will act against it This is not a good assumption. I've seen lots of cases in the developed world where the courts do nothing.
- world_peace42 5y agoI’m not sure how you could reach that conclusion that American media is independent. There is unprecedented political influence on social media (which actively censor civilly expressed contrarian opinions) and conventional media in the US, with increasing calls for state censorship by US congresspeople. It’s hard not to see the trend; it’s only a matter of time.
- dheera 5y agoI think what I said was misinterpreted. The American media is NOT independent. But because at least the American government doesn't ban and censor websites, I effectively have independent media because I can look at any non-American media that I wish. That's why I cautioned to not wish banning or censorship upon your own local law, wherever you are. If they are allowed the precedent of banning Facebook, they can also ban Al-Jazeera or BBC or DW or Wikipedia or whatever you wish to actually look at.
- world_peace42 5y agoThere are active calls by many Democrats for state censorship of websites like Breitbart, which, although I'm not a huge fan, do not call for violence of any sort. Also, I don't think it's fair to simply draw the line at "there are no laws banning specific media sources". It's hard to deny at this point that politicians are actively influencing and engaging with tech executives who are performing censorship. At this point, it's also a little difficult to claim that this is a trend that will change course or not accelerate.
- random314 5y agoA lot of the privileged Indians are rooting for a fascist government, that would "restore" their religious and caste elitism from 2000 years ago. This requires a constant dissemination of fake news and calls to violence, which Twitter is tagging as misleading information. Hence, the anger in the comments and downvoting by upper caste folks of Indian origin.