4 ms·
> Twitters censorship and governmental collusion Also known as complying with local laws. It's always amusing when Americans realise that most of the world do
by threeseed 3y ago
> Twitters censorship and governmental collusion
Also known as complying with local laws.
It's always amusing when Americans realise that most of the world doesn't ascribe to their views on free speech.
And in fact governments with broad support from their citizens want social media companies to be regulated.
- tyingq 3y ago>Also known as complying with local laws That's one form of "censorship and governmental collusion". There are others. Parts of government collude with companies outside of actual law too.
- yonaguska 3y agoSuppressing news stories and users at the behest of the FBI has nothing to do with complying with local laws. Let's not forget that Twitter was actively becoming a host for child porn at the same time, and not addressing that issue simultaneously.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"Let's not forget that Twitter was actively becoming a host for child porn at the same time" I never knew in the first place. Is this a solid fact? I find it hard to imagine people sharing cp via twitter.
- infecto 3y agoAnecdotal but they did have a pretty active team around the time identifying CP and terrorist beheading type videos/images. They did have a pretty big issue with terrorist orgs using Twitter, would not surprise me CP made its way there.
- hutzlibu 3y agoTerrorists want the maximum attention for their videos. Pedophiles usually not, so I really do not see a connection.
- yonaguska 3y agohttps://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/elon-musks-says-the-issue-of-child-sexual-exploitation-content-on-twitter-is-priority-1/articleshow/95668308.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/elon-musks-says-the... And personally, yes, I came across accounts that were doing this. Seemed like they were mostly based outside of the USA, and the exploitation is usually something along the lines of someone using existing porn, advertising a series of link shorteners to access said porn, then profiting from the ad clicks. This is probably not profitable for anyone in a developed country, and is also probably only profitable due to child porn being outright banned from most of the internet, with no free access to material, people will jump through hoops to access said material. I'd been reporting those accounts for years to no avail until recently. Instagram has the same issue. I gave up on reporting on Instagram as I couldn't stomach seeing this stuff and my reports never had any results. The people sharing this stuff on Instagram fall into a few categories, occasionally parents, and other adults selling access to pictures/videos of their young children and toddlers in bikinis, something that would otherwise not be sexual, except that they are selling to an audience that is sexualizing it. Instagram will not take any of this down as it's not technically nudity. Maybe it's changed though. The other class of abusers are usually non USA based, and they'll exploit Instagram live to share, multiple broadcasters will be streaming, but one will be broadcasting hardcore child porn. You can only report one host of the stream, and by the time anyone looks at it, presumably, they've switched to another account to stream. It will usually be another broadcaster that was on the previous stream. I couldn't continue spending time reporting this stuff due to the hardcore nature of it. Instagram really needs to fix their reporting and allow reporting of every single broadcaster that is part of a live stream.
- hutzlibu 3y agoOk, this is something, even though the articles alone seem blown out of proportion a bit, but if you personally confirm, that you were reporting those accounts with nothing happening and now this changed, then I will take your word for it. And thanks for trying to fight the dark corners.
- mikrotikker 3y agoIf you think that's crazy look at the blatant CP ring the WSJ unveiled on Instagram last week.
- londons_explore 3y agoChild porn is a good example of censorship that is both required by local law (in most countries) and widely supported by the population.
- sandworm101 3y agoThe FBI enforce local laws, ie US federal law. Cooperation with them sound exactly like compliance with local laws. We might want everyone to "fight the police" in the name of freedom, but in the real world most people cooperate with reasonable police requests, deferring to thier understanding of the law rather than hashing every little thing out in courts. When a cop on the street asks for help, most people do actually lend a hand.
- bombolo 3y agodoing whatever the police tells you to do and following the law aren't the same thing.
- torpid 3y agoSCOTUS has already ruled that for first amendment purposes, if the government hires a contractor to censor, it is still censoring and violating the first amendment. The FBI does not enforce supreme laws to which they are subject to, they have throughout their pathetic existence continue to routinely break laws largely with impunity.
- sandworm101 3y agoYa. The government cannot pay twitter to do what the government itself could not do. That says nothing about twitter voluntarily doing something to appease authorities. The police normally cannot force people to cooperate with thier investigations, yet millions of people still do. If everyone exercised thier rights to non-cooperation in each and every cicumstance they could, criminal justice would grind to a halt.
- throw_m239339 3y ago> Also known as complying with local laws. No. The US executive branch via government agency can't tell a website to silence speech, that's a violation of the first amendement. That's exactly what happened with Twitter. Twitter didn't comply with any law, Twitter just did the binding of the US executive branch when it came to censorship. Completely unlawful.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWas it unlawful for Twitter to voluntary do so?
- thepangolino 3y ago[dead]
- sandworm101 3y agoI think they can. Twitter isnt a public forum. It is a private entity. They very much can shut down any speech they want. They can also do so in response to government requests. Pure unbridled freedom of speech only really exists in public spaces. The insides of privately-owned servers are not a streetcorner, courthouse step or city park.
- bombolo 3y ago[flagged]
- sandworm101 3y agoLol. Dont assume that anyone with a bit of american legal knowledge is automatically also an american.
- dang 3y agoPlease don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mikrotikker 3y agoFree Speech should be America's #1 export. Non compliance with censorship may make other countries block American sites, but then they have to deal with their citizens angry they don't have access to the service because of arbitrary information restriction.
- threeseed 3y agoThe world doesn't want America's version of free speech. They prefer a more managed version of it where hate speech, doxxing, abuse, defamation etc aren't rampant.
- mikrotikker 3y agoSpeak for yourself. Free speech is a core part of democracy. America has the purest form.