7 ms·

The benefit is complying with local laws. Not all countries have “first amendment style free speech”. Note the speech restrictions in the Indian constitution: h

The benefit is complying with local laws. Not all countries have “first amendment style free speech”. Note the speech restrictions in the Indian constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban those kinds of hastags. FWIW, the American government also requests removals from social media sites. Edit: perhaps this comment is unnecessarily controversial / inflammatory. I just wanted to suggest that there are other interpretations of free speech law and that it makes sense for a corporation to comply with those laws if they want to operate in those countries. I personally dont agree with those laws, which is why I fortunately moved to the US.

andyjohnson0 5y ago
> The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban those kinds of hastags. Why? How does a hashtag impact a country's sovereignty or security? Edit: am I missing /s here?
- mschuster91 5y ago
  The reasoning is that organizing for stuff like the farmers' strike or generally opposing Modi's politics threatens the security of India by... well, being critical of the government's actions.
- rishav_sharan 5y ago
  It shows our Dear Leader in poor light and is thus something only anti nationals would do. Dissent is the biggest threat to India's sovereignty and free thought to its security.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
OzyM 5y ago
Super interesting Wikipedia article, thanks for the link! Some of the restrictions on free speech make me instinctually uncomfortable (i.e. restrictions for the sake of "decency and morality"), but I recognize these are hardly unique to India and countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books, etc. in the past. I'm not sure that I personally am in favor. However, you're clearly right in that it's hardly unprecedented or unique.
- xxpor 5y ago
  >countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books, etc. in the past. The modern interpretation of the 1st amendment as being fairly absolute is only 50-100 years old. Don't forget the federal government had political prisoners for protesting against the US getting involved in WW 1, and the HUAC and McCarthy hearings were blatantly unconstitutional under modern jurisprudence. We don't even need to talk about the Alien and Sedition acts, passed right after the 1st amendment was ratified!
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Or the Comstock acts. At one point it was illegal to distribute information on contraception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#State_laws_on_birth_control_(contraception),_etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#State_laws_on_bi....
  - jbishop156 5y ago
    That's true. It did take the US 200 years to come to the correct interpretation of First Amendment being damn near absolute. Shameful as that delay was, we progressed in the right direction.
mullen 5y ago
> FWIW, the American government also requests removals from social media sites. No, they don't. Any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job. That's saying a lot because American Government officials rarely ever lose their jobs.
- oneplane 5y ago
  Yes they do. Not personally, but they do. The amount of child exploitation that falls through the filters is not zero, and sometimes the government of the US intervenes and asks for the content to be removed.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Removing that kind of illegal content by the police is 100% different from political officials asking to have content critical of the gov't removed.
    - oneplane 5y ago
      Illegal is just whatever the law says is illegal. If you make a law making dissent illegal, then that content is illegal. So now you have to define 'real'-illegal and 'I do not like your opinion'-illegal in the law of some other country.
    - alex_smart 5y ago
      The point is that India is a sovereign republic and has its own laws about what is illegal and is not. According to India's laws, spreading false rumours about the police shooting a farmer when there is clear evidence that the person actually died by running his tractor into a barricade is illegal. And when Twitter failed to comply with government's orders to remove these tweets, they didn't have any point of contact from the company they could turn to for accountability. That's why the need for the compliance officer. Also, criticizing the government is not illegal according to Indian laws.
      - 5y ago
rishav_sharan 5y ago
> The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban those kinds of hastags. Thats a fairly nonsensical claim. Are you planning back it up with more details/sources? Because if we are just making sentences on the fly, IMO, this BJP regime has been allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India.
- xNeil 5y ago
  The hashtags insinuated the government was planning a farmer genocide. Source: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/govt-sends-notice-to-twitter-on-restoring-suspended-accounts/articleshow/80667340.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/govt-se...
  - rishav_sharan 5y ago
    How is that a threat to India's sovereignty or security? Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people. Hell, he was even banned from entering the US, till he became the Indian PM. There is blood on his hands and lots of it. And to give some context on this hash tag, I believe it came after the gov't put across barricades and barbed wires to caroll the protesters leading many to believe that the regime was planning a major crackdown. The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/iron-spikes-barbed-wire-and-concrete-walls-at-delhi-farm-protest-sites-101612204708512.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/iron-spikes-bar... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754
    - ConcernedCoder 5y ago
      because now it will be harder to do the actual genocide without someone saying "hey, see! I told you so..."
    - nsenifty 5y ago
      > The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense. Wasn't it partly due to the genocide misinformation? One protestor died in a tractor accident and Twitter did little to curb the misinformation that he was shot by police.

andyjohnson0 5y ago

> The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban those kinds of hastags. Why? How does a hashtag impact a country's sovereignty or security? Edit: am I missing /s here?

mschuster91 5y ago
The reasoning is that organizing for stuff like the farmers' strike or generally opposing Modi's politics threatens the security of India by... well, being critical of the government's actions.
rishav_sharan 5y ago
It shows our Dear Leader in poor light and is thus something only anti nationals would do. Dissent is the biggest threat to India's sovereignty and free thought to its security.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

OzyM 5y ago

Super interesting Wikipedia article, thanks for the link! Some of the restrictions on free speech make me instinctually uncomfortable (i.e. restrictions for the sake of "decency and morality"), but I recognize these are hardly unique to India and countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books, etc. in the past. I'm not sure that I personally am in favor. However, you're clearly right in that it's hardly unprecedented or unique.

xxpor 5y ago
>countries such as the U.S. have censored plenty of books, etc. in the past. The modern interpretation of the 1st amendment as being fairly absolute is only 50-100 years old. Don't forget the federal government had political prisoners for protesting against the US getting involved in WW 1, and the HUAC and McCarthy hearings were blatantly unconstitutional under modern jurisprudence. We don't even need to talk about the Alien and Sedition acts, passed right after the 1st amendment was ratified!
- pjc50 5y ago
  Or the Comstock acts. At one point it was illegal to distribute information on contraception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#State_laws_on_birth_control_(contraception),_etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws#State_laws_on_bi....
- jbishop156 5y ago
  That's true. It did take the US 200 years to come to the correct interpretation of First Amendment being damn near absolute. Shameful as that delay was, we progressed in the right direction.

mullen 5y ago

> FWIW, the American government also requests removals from social media sites. No, they don't. Any American Government official requesting a removal of anything from social media sites would probably lose their job. That's saying a lot because American Government officials rarely ever lose their jobs.

oneplane 5y ago
Yes they do. Not personally, but they do. The amount of child exploitation that falls through the filters is not zero, and sometimes the government of the US intervenes and asks for the content to be removed.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Removing that kind of illegal content by the police is 100% different from political officials asking to have content critical of the gov't removed.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    Illegal is just whatever the law says is illegal. If you make a law making dissent illegal, then that content is illegal. So now you have to define 'real'-illegal and 'I do not like your opinion'-illegal in the law of some other country.
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    The point is that India is a sovereign republic and has its own laws about what is illegal and is not. According to India's laws, spreading false rumours about the police shooting a farmer when there is clear evidence that the person actually died by running his tractor into a barricade is illegal. And when Twitter failed to comply with government's orders to remove these tweets, they didn't have any point of contact from the company they could turn to for accountability. That's why the need for the compliance officer. Also, criticizing the government is not illegal according to Indian laws.
    - 5y ago

rishav_sharan 5y ago

> The farmers protests were allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India and so it makes sense to ban those kinds of hastags. Thats a fairly nonsensical claim. Are you planning back it up with more details/sources? Because if we are just making sentences on the fly, IMO, this BJP regime has been allegedly detrimental to the sovereignty and security of India.

xNeil 5y ago
The hashtags insinuated the government was planning a farmer genocide. Source: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/govt-sends-notice-to-twitter-on-restoring-suspended-accounts/articleshow/80667340.cms https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/govt-se...
- rishav_sharan 5y ago
  How is that a threat to India's sovereignty or security? Modi is infamous for having caused, by his actions or inactions, the Gujarat riots that killed 2000+ people. Hell, he was even banned from entering the US, till he became the Indian PM. There is blood on his hands and lots of it. And to give some context on this hash tag, I believe it came after the gov't put across barricades and barbed wires to caroll the protesters leading many to believe that the regime was planning a major crackdown. The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/iron-spikes-barbed-wire-and-concrete-walls-at-delhi-farm-protest-sites-101612204708512.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/iron-spikes-bar... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55899754
  - ConcernedCoder 5y ago
    because now it will be harder to do the actual genocide without someone saying "hey, see! I told you so..."
  - nsenifty 5y ago
    > The situation in the first week of Feb was very tense. Wasn't it partly due to the genocide misinformation? One protestor died in a tractor accident and Twitter did little to curb the misinformation that he was shot by police.