5 ms·

> "Actually no, you can't say we treat everyone equally, we're manually going in and exempting certain people from scrutiny, and that's entirely within our disc

> "Actually no, you can't say we treat everyone equally, we're manually going in and exempting certain people from scrutiny, and that's entirely within our discretion." Isn't that literally what Twitter does as well? Making exceptions for Politicians and Government Representatives? Or does HN's bias towards Twitter exempt it from any form of scrutiny?

caslon 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nl 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. You perpetuated this one badly and that's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- KrishnaShripad 4y ago
  When it comes to India, Twitter is typically at the forefront of mainstreaming propaganda and selectively applying rules. So my perspective comes from that (since this article concerns feud between Meta and The Wire which covers India). Whenever Twitter gets mentioned (atleast in HN) concerning its role in policy with regards to politicians it mostly gets a pass. Let me put it this way: what you feel Meta is doing in the West, is what many in India (like me) feel Twitter is doing here. And the sentiment I see is mostly anti Meta and mostly pro Twitter here. After all it is my perspective and I could be wrong (as I obviously don't have statistics to say if HN definitely has a Twitter bias or not). But I believe I have a right to express my opinion on what I feel is HN sentiment towards big tech censorship (which mostly circles around Meta but rarely around Twitter).
  - 8note 4y ago
    I haven't seen twitter getting a pass? When trump finally got the boot, the comments were along the lines of "the only thing that can't get you kicked off of twitter is to run an insurrection against the US government"
    - nl 4y ago
      I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-indian-government https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in... The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
      - KrishnaShripad 4y ago
        > I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in... Vice is part of the same Leftist Media cabal. > The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take. LMFAO no. It is mostly about Twitter censoring accounts that are pro-Hindu: https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/1328922464475246593 https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/132892246447524659... And the ban was done after Opposition Party supporting Bureaucrat (from the IPS cadre) threatened to get the account banned. Basically Twitter acted on behalf of the Opposition not the Ruling Party. You can read the full story here [1]. If Twitter is truly unbiased, it wouldn't be siding so openly with Opposition Parties in India. Quoting the user (TrueIndology) who was banned: `She asked me for my personal details. I refused to divulge those details. She then said "Your time is up". And boom. My account was suspended within 5 minutes. Twitter sent no mail. Gave no reason. Simply suspended my account`. The Government of India has authority to regulate Law and pass Executive Orders to entities operating within the Country. The Opposition of India has no such powers. Yet Twitter defied the Government's Executive Orders but did not defy the Opposition Party Bureaucrat's diktat. That should tell you how openly biased Twitter is. Anyways, being a "strong BJP supporter" is not a crime on HN I presume. Where propaganda thrives it is better to be a strong, vocal supporter. Even if all alone and in minority. [1]: https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindology-account-ips-officer-diwali-firecrackers-ban/ https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindolog...
numpad0 4y ago
I don't think this has too much with celebrities, but about exempting "problematic people" from being repeatedly banned by algorithmic and applied AI systems. IOW, they don't have controls over internal mechanisms of so-called algorithms, and a separate suppression system is used to reduce harm.

caslon 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nl 4y ago

[flagged]

dang 4y ago
Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. You perpetuated this one badly and that's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
KrishnaShripad 4y ago
When it comes to India, Twitter is typically at the forefront of mainstreaming propaganda and selectively applying rules. So my perspective comes from that (since this article concerns feud between Meta and The Wire which covers India). Whenever Twitter gets mentioned (atleast in HN) concerning its role in policy with regards to politicians it mostly gets a pass. Let me put it this way: what you feel Meta is doing in the West, is what many in India (like me) feel Twitter is doing here. And the sentiment I see is mostly anti Meta and mostly pro Twitter here. After all it is my perspective and I could be wrong (as I obviously don't have statistics to say if HN definitely has a Twitter bias or not). But I believe I have a right to express my opinion on what I feel is HN sentiment towards big tech censorship (which mostly circles around Meta but rarely around Twitter).
- 8note 4y ago
  I haven't seen twitter getting a pass? When trump finally got the boot, the comments were along the lines of "the only thing that can't get you kicked off of twitter is to run an insurrection against the US government"
  - nl 4y ago
    I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-indian-government https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in... The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take.
    - KrishnaShripad 4y ago
      > I think this is mostly about Twitter's refusal to censor on behalf of the Indian government; see eg https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d3bmn/twitter-censorship-in... Vice is part of the same Leftist Media cabal. > The OP is a very strong BJP supporter (see comment history), but even so it's a weird take. LMFAO no. It is mostly about Twitter censoring accounts that are pro-Hindu: https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/1328922464475246593 https://twitter.com/aranganathan72/status/132892246447524659... And the ban was done after Opposition Party supporting Bureaucrat (from the IPS cadre) threatened to get the account banned. Basically Twitter acted on behalf of the Opposition not the Ruling Party. You can read the full story here [1]. If Twitter is truly unbiased, it wouldn't be siding so openly with Opposition Parties in India. Quoting the user (TrueIndology) who was banned: `She asked me for my personal details. I refused to divulge those details. She then said "Your time is up". And boom. My account was suspended within 5 minutes. Twitter sent no mail. Gave no reason. Simply suspended my account`. The Government of India has authority to regulate Law and pass Executive Orders to entities operating within the Country. The Opposition of India has no such powers. Yet Twitter defied the Government's Executive Orders but did not defy the Opposition Party Bureaucrat's diktat. That should tell you how openly biased Twitter is. Anyways, being a "strong BJP supporter" is not a crime on HN I presume. Where propaganda thrives it is better to be a strong, vocal supporter. Even if all alone and in minority. [1]: https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindology-account-ips-officer-diwali-firecrackers-ban/ https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/twitter-suspends-trueindolog...

numpad0 4y ago

I don't think this has too much with celebrities, but about exempting "problematic people" from being repeatedly banned by algorithmic and applied AI systems. IOW, they don't have controls over internal mechanisms of so-called algorithms, and a separate suppression system is used to reduce harm.