4 ms·

They have to follow the law of the country as tyrannical as it is like they did in Brazil. I hope one day they say fuck it.

warkdarrior 1y ago
Turkey has a law requiring social networks to shadowban opposition-party candidates?
- fourseventy 1y ago
  this answers your question: https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081 https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081
- notenlish 1y ago
  Not officially but they definitely requested twitter to shadowban the opposition candidate
utku1337 1y ago
shadow ban is not part of that
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  It is when you get a letter from the government telling you to do that on whatever pretext which doesn't matter at that point because you either comply with the government requests, or have to leave the country otherwise they risk banning, fines or imprisonment/asset seizing. Social media companies aren't gonna take a foreign government to court to arbitrate requests in order to protect a citizen since the law is always on the side of the government as they're the ones making it and enforcing it. The EU and EU members also tell X to ban certain political topics they dislike under various pretexts, and X always complies without question. Like I was sending a friend from Germany a clip on X of Ukrainian recruiters kidnapping a guy off the street and throwing him in a van but surprise, my friend couldn't watch it as the video was banned in Germany but not in my EU country. What German law was it breaking? I don't know, it didn't say, but it doesn't really matter since any government makes up the speech rules as they go and uses selective enforcement on the basis of "for my friends anything, for my enemies the law" so every government practices its own version of domestic censorship in order to maintain its power.
FredPret 1y ago
But then X just gets banned in said country
- ronsor 1y ago
  This is acceptable.
  - FredPret 1y ago
    Now that country goes from having limited access to having none at all - seems worse. If you don't like X (understandable) then it's much better to not visit it voluntarily than by a top-down block
    - pegasus 1y ago
      It's worse because it hands repressive authorities a much more powerful tool of mind control than what they had before. More powerful because targeted, hard to detect and even harder to prove.
  - ahartmetz 1y ago
    For the world and Turkey, yes, for X, no.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Arab_Spring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_A...
foxglacier 1y ago
What other moral standard is there besides laws? Is it that the laws of non-tyrannical countries should override those of tyrannical ones? How do you decide tyrannicalness? Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Great firewalls are the solution when nobody can agree with each other across borders but that's a pity.
- ronsor 1y ago
  > What other moral standard is there besides laws? To be honest, you could restrict your compliance to only the laws of the country you're based in. American companies follow American laws, etc. Then move your company to where you most agree with the laws.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    And when your company has an office in that country, or prominent employees have family in that country?
    - ronsor 1y ago
      Perhaps do not have an office in that country. As for employees, that is their concern. Ideally the country is not willing to punish the family members of employees of companies that do not follow its draconian laws, but we know some do, such as China. Regardless, that is not a reason to capitulate; if you do so, you are effectively enabling state-backed extortion.
- tshaddox 1y ago
  > Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Internet companies (like all companies) can and indeed must choose how they behave. "We follow all laws inside each country" is one such choice, but it's not a special privileged choice that absolves the company of criticism for its behavior.
- chuckadams 1y ago

warkdarrior 1y ago

Turkey has a law requiring social networks to shadowban opposition-party candidates?

fourseventy 1y ago
this answers your question: https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081 https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1920426409358455081
notenlish 1y ago
Not officially but they definitely requested twitter to shadowban the opposition candidate

utku1337 1y ago

shadow ban is not part of that

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
It is when you get a letter from the government telling you to do that on whatever pretext which doesn't matter at that point because you either comply with the government requests, or have to leave the country otherwise they risk banning, fines or imprisonment/asset seizing. Social media companies aren't gonna take a foreign government to court to arbitrate requests in order to protect a citizen since the law is always on the side of the government as they're the ones making it and enforcing it. The EU and EU members also tell X to ban certain political topics they dislike under various pretexts, and X always complies without question. Like I was sending a friend from Germany a clip on X of Ukrainian recruiters kidnapping a guy off the street and throwing him in a van but surprise, my friend couldn't watch it as the video was banned in Germany but not in my EU country. What German law was it breaking? I don't know, it didn't say, but it doesn't really matter since any government makes up the speech rules as they go and uses selective enforcement on the basis of "for my friends anything, for my enemies the law" so every government practices its own version of domestic censorship in order to maintain its power.

FredPret 1y ago

But then X just gets banned in said country

ronsor 1y ago
This is acceptable.
- FredPret 1y ago
  Now that country goes from having limited access to having none at all - seems worse. If you don't like X (understandable) then it's much better to not visit it voluntarily than by a top-down block
  - pegasus 1y ago
    It's worse because it hands repressive authorities a much more powerful tool of mind control than what they had before. More powerful because targeted, hard to detect and even harder to prove.
- ahartmetz 1y ago
  For the world and Turkey, yes, for X, no.
NewJazz 1y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Arab_Spring https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_A...

foxglacier 1y ago

What other moral standard is there besides laws? Is it that the laws of non-tyrannical countries should override those of tyrannical ones? How do you decide tyrannicalness? Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Great firewalls are the solution when nobody can agree with each other across borders but that's a pity.

ronsor 1y ago
> What other moral standard is there besides laws? To be honest, you could restrict your compliance to only the laws of the country you're based in. American companies follow American laws, etc. Then move your company to where you most agree with the laws.
- tracker1 1y ago
  And when your company has an office in that country, or prominent employees have family in that country?
  - ronsor 1y ago
    Perhaps do not have an office in that country. As for employees, that is their concern. Ideally the country is not willing to punish the family members of employees of companies that do not follow its draconian laws, but we know some do, such as China. Regardless, that is not a reason to capitulate; if you do so, you are effectively enabling state-backed extortion.
tshaddox 1y ago
> Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Internet companies (like all companies) can and indeed must choose how they behave. "We follow all laws inside each country" is one such choice, but it's not a special privileged choice that absolves the company of criticism for its behavior.
chuckadams 1y ago