18 ms·
Indian government empowers itself to “fact check,” delete social media posts
- radicaldreamer 4y agoUnfortunate that this rightward lurch by the Modi government (still incredibly popular in India) will be ignored by the "west" due to competition with China. India considers unfettered social media and speech a threat to stability, just like China.
- indy 4y agoWhy label this 'rightward'? Plenty of left-leaning governments throughout history have used censorship.
- radicaldreamer 4y agoYou're right, I think "illiberal" lurch is a better description.
- beisner 4y agoauthoritarian is probably the right word, rather than left/right.
- jtode 4y agoAuthoritarian is also probably the rightward.
- jutrewag 4y agoBanning hate speech is not censorship.
- lockhouse 4y agoCensorship: the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...
- jutrewag 4y agoThen banning bomb making is censorship but there’s no opposition to that.
- drdeca 4y agoBanning instructions on how to make bombs would be censorship. Banning the making of bombs is not censorship.
- jutrewag 4y agoThe former is banned.
- philipkglass 4y agoThis is where it's more helpful to talk about specific nations' laws. Books about making bombs are not banned in the USA, for example. Here are the books "Improvised Munitions Black Book" and "U.S. Army Unconventional Warfare Devices: Boobytraps" from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Black-Book-Unabridged/dp/5401352530 https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Black-Book-Unabr... Originally created for soldiers in guerrilla warfare situations, this handbook demonstrates the techniques for constructing weapons that are highly effective in the most harrowing of circumstances. Straightforward and incredibly user-friendly, it provides insightful information and step-by-step instructions on how to assemble weapons and explosives from common and readily available materials. Over 600 illustrations complement elaborate explanations of how to improvise any number of munitions from easily accessible resources. https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Unconventional-Warfare-Devices-Boobytraps/dp/B09M5L99LP https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Unconventional-Warfare-Devices-Bo... Some of the materials discussed in this special forces guide to boobytraps include: - Disguise boobytraps in common items. - Disguise boobytraps in structures such as window frames and stairways. - Disguise boobytraps in outdoor areas, in bushes and underground. - Learn the mechanics of the various types of firing devices, detonators, fuses, cords, adapters, blasting caps, and lighters. Actually following instructions in these books may lead to felony charges in all 50 states. But writing or reading about them is perfectly legal. The same goes for reading and writing about making scheduled drugs, poisons, and other controlled items.
- Delk 4y ago"Throughout history". I doubt all the Soviet Union and other authoritarian communist regimes censored for decades was hate speech. Sure, at the moment the left seems to largely align with social liberalism, at least in the west. Maybe authoritarianism is generally more correlated with conservatism, and conservatism with right-wing politics. But left vs. right and authoritarian vs. liberal aren't really the same axis, and it would seem historically quite myopic to think left-wing views somehow confer immunity to abuse of power.
- wolverine876 4y ago> Plenty of left-leaning governments throughout history have used censorship. What does that have to do with Modi? Modi's government has moved far to the right.
- lockhouse 4y agoNot the person you're replying to, but there is this persistent fallacy that left is inherently good and right is inherently evil, despite the fact that neither side of the political spectrum is inherently good or evil. Great injustices have been committed under both liberal and conservative governments throughout history.
- rektide 4y agoIn this modern case though we have another rightward illiberal authoritarian lurch. In modern times these seem to have high correspondences.
- indy 4y agoThe correspondence is with power. Opposition parties are often anti-censorship, pro free speech etc. Once they come into power this all changes and they drift towards authoritarianism. Western, left-leaning governments have invented the term "hate speech" to justify this behaviour, right-leaning governments would often use "family values".
- wolverine876 4y agoNot every restriction on speech is the same. Restricting hate speech protects the politically vulnerable, the minority, the oppressed. It's not a restriction on hate speech toward the government. Restricting 'anti-family' speech protects the status quo, those in power, the political majority and oppresses the vulnerable minority. For example, look at the discrimination against LGTBQ people now.
- wolverine876 4y ago
- lazyninja987 4y ago[dead]
- standardUser 4y agoIt's true that the US has a lot of reasons to play nice with India, but even if they didn't, there's not much I'd expect the US to do in this situation. Maybe Blinken would make a statement. But this isn't the kind of thing that historically results in sanctions or officially curtailing the bilateral relationship.
- ankit108 4y ago[flagged]
- roncesvalles 4y agoThe West ignores much more egregious rights transgressions by much deeper allies. India is a lamb of a country in comparison.
- VLM 4y agoBetter to have "the government" do it rather than a single political party like its done in the USA.
- autoexec 4y agoI'm not even opposed to flagging posts as “fake, false or misleading” because abusing those flags will cause them to be ignored, but removing content is a problem. State censorship is a much bigger threat to Democracy than false or misleading tweets and facebook posts.
- SomeCallMeTim 4y agoTen years ago I would have agreed. Today? I'm not sure you're right about which is the greater threat. Yes, state censorship can be abused. But promoting misinformation is a known threat to Democracy today. Right now. I'm not sure what the real answer should be. If "the market" manages to get the propaganda farms' misinformation under control, then great. If they don't, the only answer I can see is for government to step in. As they say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Dying to protect absolute freedom of speech when bad actors are abusing it to destroy the country is not wise.
- johndhi 4y agoWhy is the government well suited to declare what it and isn't misinformation though? Shouldn't we farm that out to a third party?
- code_chimp 4y agoThe government will just infiltrate and control that third party by funding it. "You want us to raise your rates the next round of appropriations, here is what we expect to get 'fact checked'".
- autoexec 4y ago> Why is the government well suited to declare what it and isn't misinformation though? Presumably because much of the lies and disinformation going around involves them to start with. When some nutjob starts posting about something like millions of American citizens being locked up in FEMA camps, or claiming that a proposed healthcare bill calls for the formation of a government death panel any respectable fact checking org is going to end up asking the lawmakers and FEMA about it anyway so government certainly has a role here. Ideally, each social media platform would have their own people catching and flagging the worst examples of disinformation and that might also involve enlisting the services of both governments and vetted independent third parties. In my limited experience on social media where I don't see any official flags for misinformation I've seen plenty of cases where it's other users stepping in and correcting outright lies and common misconceptions complete with sources. That probably works better in some spaces than others though.
- dahwolf 4y ago...which pretty much ends democracy. Without the ability to criticize a government in power, one cannot build opposition. Hence, there is no democracy.
- f38zf5vdt 4y agoOne of the more bizarre parts of the Musk-Twitter saga has been Musk's unyielding support for censorship of tweets critical of Modi. [1] I don't really understand why someone who claims to be dedicated to free speech would ever take such a position? Does he intend for his "Everything App" to dominate South Asia rather than North America? [1] https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punjab-amritpal-singh/ https://theintercept.com/2023/03/28/twitter-modi-india-punja...
- jutrewag 4y agoBecause generally the right isn’t for free speech, just the free speech that supports their perspective. They’re literally defunding public libraries as we speak.
- blueyoda 4y agoI know tons of people from both political spectrums who are pro-free-speech. I also know people who support free-speech that only supports their views. Nonetheless, you are correct in that there are right-wingers who are hypocrites by claiming to be pro-free-speech but then defunding libraries. Many on the left do this too, unfortunately. They claim to be for freedom but then advocate for the censorship of "misinformation" - a term that is currently being twisted to fit different political agendas.
- gettodachoppa 4y agoI read your link. It says Twitter and Youtube were ordered by the government to take down links to the BBC documentary and both complied. The BBC itself is sending copyright strikes to Youtubers who upload the documentary. Even the Internet Archive took the link down when someone uploaded it there. HN seems to have Musk Derangement Syndrome. I have never seen selective outrage aimed at someone to this degree. Everyone on this site seems to turn a blind eye or tolerate to every tech company complying with local laws in foreign countries, but then hold Musk to a much higher standard. He's not allowed to merely be an improvement over his predecessors, he must pass the highest purity tests given to a tech leader, or else he's a lying hypocrite.
- azifali 4y agoA clear case of inmates running the asylum.
- Shatnerz 4y agoIndia has some previous experience with censorship. Maybe we will end up with "The Emergency: Part II" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
- shasts 4y agoInteresting, because Indian Government recently jailed an independent fact checker for a tweet he made 4 years ago. This new body seems to be a tool to suppress dissent and promote the fake news machinery Government and the ruling party is notorious for. https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/alt-news-pratik-sinha-mohammad-zubair-among-favourites-to-win-nobel-peace-prize-2022-report-14873691.htm https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/alt-news-pratik-sinha-mohamma...
- mrcheesebreeze 4y ago[flagged]
- throwaway_9120 4y ago[flagged]
- honkler 4y agolol what? There have been plenty of Hindutva terror incidents, one as recent as the day before yesterday, when 3 men killed a couple of undertrials in front of live camera and then went on to scream the terror warcry of "Jai Sree Ram". > If this is “fascism” as you say, majority of the Indians are happy living under it. Do you have a sense of irony? Majority is always happy under fascism. It is the minority who matters in that case.
- throwaway_9120 4y agoThe 2 brothers who were killed were notorious gangsters involved in 100+ cases of murders, loot, kidnapping etc. At least read-up before trying to win with your ignorance. India has Buddhists, Parsis, Jains, Zoroastrian as “true” minorities. They don’t have any problems in India. In fact they are among the most prosperous folks. Why is that only Muslims have problem everywhere on the globe? France, US, UK, Israel and the list goes on.
- 4y ago
- yutijke 4y agoUnchecked Censorship by the government can be a problem, but I find it hard to take voices in this space on face value since they are often the most vocal cheerleaders when a government or political party they like is doing the censorship since it's "Human rights" not politics. Given the dissolving line between Social media and the Town square, who should be the arbiters of speech on Social media? A committee appointed from "Interest groups" with all the right "credentials" and "expertise"? Effectively an incestous group with circular pats on the backs. A separate body elected by the people just for this purpose? Something else?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- diegoholiveira 4y agoIMO, create a policy constraint one person, one account and One company, one account would help a lot about this because it will be much easy to identify and punish those who spread fake news. Anonymous accounts are, IMO, the biggest problem of social networks.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rektide 4y agoI dont know. But the idea that we pick a group never sits well with me. The election to that group becomes highly political, & eventually the group will fall out of grace. There's the idea of forming digital juries to hear cases. http://digitaljuries.com/ http://digitaljuries.com/ In the case of censorship it's less about moderating a person, so I think a more fitting flow would be to have the censor build a small case, say why they think there's an issue, then let a jury vote. I do think we'd need some meta-moderation of a sort. The jury system itself should be broadly open access, but it needs some checks too.
- corbulo 4y agoDemocracies cannot function if the people are shielded from all the evil things that necessitate thinking critically. Bad information is a fact of life, not social media. The only way you get someone to think critically is putting them in a situation where they have to. If you constantly censor and baby them, they won't make better decisions they will make worse ones. The idea that censorship has to happen in order to protect democracy really fulfills horseshoe theory.
- corbulo 4y agoIll admit I don't know a ton about India's constitution. Do they have freedom of speech? How is it phrased?
- honkler 4y agoOnly majority community (Upper caste - hindi speaking - hindus have freedom of speech). Infact they are so free that they can call for genocide on live television, and get away with it. If you're minority (especially a journalist), you'd be Jailed without trial for years (UAPA and NSA). Think of it as a modern day Gulag.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nsenifty 4y agoThere is freedom of speech, but the first amendment[0] ironically added measures to restrict free speech. Even aside from that, it's a minefield of colonial era Sedition laws, blasphemy laws, anti-terrorism laws etc. The state can also make it pretty miserable for you even if you didn't break the laws just by arresting you and denying swift justice (since the court cases can take decades). You could also be "made to disappear" if you sufficiently piss off a powerful non-state entity. So yeah it's pretty bleak. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_Constit...
- corbulo 4y agoIts all too common for states to have soft free speech. I wonder why Indians haven't pushed more for nailing that down.
- screye 4y agoI highly recommend you go read a summary of the Indian constitution before reading comments on here. I will offer my own opinions on the matter, but you'll likely find that my answers are in stark contrast to some others on this thread. The Indian constitution (and its amendments) is one of the most liberal and social-justice oriented constitutions of any nation in the world. It was primarily drafted by independent India's most famed social justice proponent: Dr. Ambedkar and the blessings of Gandhi and Nehru, who'd fit right into the sociology departments of academic universities in the US in 2023. In broad strokes it attempts to empower states with federalism on social issues and governance, but central economic and national policy. It tries to allow social insularity of communities, linguistic or religious. So, religious minorities get to have their own personal civil law (marriage, inheritance) and independent institutions (religious schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, etc) and land ownership. On the other hand, it is paternalistic towards the Indic religions (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and partially sikhs) taking full ownership (for better or for worse) of issues pertaining to those religions. Similarly, its individual states get a lot of power over how bills are implemented on that ground, meaning that a strong central govt (like Modi's) is still quite weak and can be completely blocked by a uncooperative state govt. (TN, Kerala, WB, Delhi, etc). India was formed as an insecure nation, desperate to show how secular it was, as a counter weight to Pakistan's religious fundamentalism. Here are a few accommodations in the constitution that stand out: * Article 334 [1] of the Indian constitution explicitly grants affirmative action in all govt. institutions to those that belong to lower castes. * The judiciary is FULLY independent. This means, that unlike the US, the Indian Govt. cannot pick judges, with the judiciary internally handling issues of selecting judges all the way up to the Supreme court. [2] * The standard fundamental rights. They almost entirely focus on protection of minorities. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India#:~:text=Article%20334%20of%20the%20Constitution%20lays%20down%20that%20the%20provisions,of%20the%20States%20shall%20cease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-fifth_Amendment_of_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constitution_and_the_Judiciary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_India#The_Constit... [3] https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/ https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights/
- riffic 4y agowould love to see some analysis here for solutions at a protocol level (W3C ActivityPub, Bluesky pbllc AT protocol, nostr etc) as a way to prevent nation-states from imposing this kind of control over a specific service.
- Waterluvian 4y agoYesterday I learned that Canada is the fourth oldest ongoing democracy, measured as beginning in 1867. I think given our short lifespans, anything that our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents enjoyed is really easy to perceive as a steady state. Something to take for granted as being invariant. But it’s really not. While it’s possible to debate the specifics and semantics, this really brought into focus, for me, just how young modern democracy is with a rather unproven durability.
- preommr 4y agoIt's even younger than that; women couldn't nationally until 1920 in the US. And in practice, many black people couldn't vote until the voting acts right of 1965.
- Waterluvian 4y agoThat’s true. Just… 1965. That’s barely “history.” This is all so incredibly young and brittle.
- rektide 4y ago> just how young modern democracy is with a rather unproven durability. Everything else has a rather more proven record of squandering human potential, of being iniquitous & unjust. Not my favorite person, but the quip still seems fair: > Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill
- hdesh 4y agoInterestingly Germany has a similar law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act). Based on a cursory read the Indian counterpart seems quite similar.
- random314 4y ago15 years from now there will be no distinction between India and China in terms of freedom. There will be single party rule by BJP. The opposition is being coerced to join in with the BJP or be thrown in to jail for random offenses. BJP simply buys the legislators where it can't win elections. In terms of economics, India will not be in the same league, of course.
- blueyoda 4y agoIf a substantial portion of society easily falls for misinformation, then the solution is not to bring in a centralized entity to "fact check". The solution is to improve educational standards so people can use critical thinking skills to assess the validity of claims. Misinformation is not a threat to democracy, lack of critical thinking is. The day people willingly outsource their critical thinking will be the day democracy collapses.
- thecleaner 4y agohttps://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1914358 https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1914358 This is the actual draft of the press release. Couldnt find the amendment. Its talking about online gaming. Regulations are with respect to content with self harm and betting. There's no appeals process listed but it does not state general fact checking powers. This source is listed twice in the article and online gaming is mentioned right at the beginning. Is restofwoorld actually something credible (I dont really know) ?
- animuchan 4y agoCuriously, the very same thing done by a US-based corpo is almost unanimously considered a must have, to the point of ostracizing people for even suggesting that the corpos should be slightly less empowered to "fact check" and delete social media posts. If this isn't the definition of doublethink, I don't know what is.
- dang 4y agoAll: this thread turned into a hellish flamewar and I've belatedly banned 8 (!) accounts who were doing it particularly badly. Please understand that if you break the site guidelines like that, we're going to seriously consider banning you—especially if you've made a habit of it or we've warned you before. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html p.s. I didn't look at which side any of these accounts were arguing for or against, because it doesn't matter and we don't care. Commenters here need to follow the site guidelines regardless of what their beliefs are, how right they are or feel they are, or how wrong others are or they feel they are.