[Juin]

Juin wrote:
Therein lies the problem. Are Big Tech platforms or publishing platforms?

If they are publishing platforms, then they can be held liable for whatever users post on their platforms. That is not the preferred situation for Big Tech. And in the case of the US a Section 230 protects them from being held liable for what users post.

But really they are behaving as if they consider themselves responsible for user's posts. Thats my point: they go around "censoring" users precisely *because* they are terrified they will be held liable for hosting illegal and even morally dubious content. Thats their motivation - not some megalomaniacal desire to control and restrict everyone's free speech. I don't know anything about this Section 230, but it doesn't seem to me that it is having much effect - in terms of allaying their fears about being held liable for user's content.

As a matter of fact, whatever concerns and fears they may have felt in the 90s, they have since long left that behind; they have felt their power and have acted with the same megalomaniacal desire to control you make reference to. A case in point is the experience of Parler. Facebook, Twitter having censored conservative voices to the max faced they faced a situation which would have made their victory hollow; conservative voices were gonna decamp by the thousands to Parler; the plug was pulled on Parler, and Parler went dark for like a three months or so. That was an arrogant display of power.

Whatever the case Section 230 is a US Law. Nigeria and India have their laws. Why should Big Tech presume to have primacy over Indian or Nigerian Law?



Juin << India has been reading the Riot Act to Twitter: basically India is telling Twitter, you cannot operate in India as a sovereign body, Twitter's rules cannot have primacy over Indian Law<<




GandalfTheGrey << Are you referring to this?:

All four accounts, like several others that the Indian government ordered to be blocked in the country earlier this year, had protested New Delhi’s agriculture reforms and some had posted other tweets that criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s seven years of governance in India, an analysis by TechCrunch found.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/07/twitt ... l-request/
To which twitter complied.

But surely you are not saying this is a good thing?

India is supposedly a democracy, and I would assume would have laws in place that should protect the protestor's right to criticise the government. I think its pretty obvious where the problem of censorship lies in this particular case - and its not the fact that twitter initially allowed these people to freely post on their platform.<<



The particular cases are irrelevant. Twitter may very well be justified in its actions. But that is not the point.

Nigeria and India are democracies. The goverment of Modi can be voted out of office. As well as the government of Muhammadu Buhari. Who can vote Twitter out of office?

That is the problem.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Nigeria and India are democracies. The goverment of Modi can be voted out of office. As well as the government of Muhammadu Buhari. Who can vote Twitter out of office?

That is the problem.

You don't see a bigger problem here of wannabe despots like Mohdi in a fragile democracy demanding that twitter aid and abet them in their flagrant attacks on democracy? You of all people will appreciate the huge influence and social clout twitter has on shaping public opinion. What say you about the cynical use of twitter by governments to impose actual censorship on society?

And really, when you think about it, twitter is as vulnerable as the most robust democracies in the world to being "voted out" - as in if people like you are dissatisfied with their service, they can vote with their feet, and move to another platform. Twitter will care too - as it will affect their bottom line: less users, less revenue.

[Juin]

Juin wrote:
Nigeria and India are democracies. The goverment of Modi can be voted out of office. As well as the government of Muhammadu Buhari. Who can vote Twitter out of office?

That is the problem.



GandalfTheGrey << You don't see a bigger problem here of wannabe despots like Mohdi in a fragile democracy demanding that twitter aid and abet them in their flagrant attacks on democracy? You of all people will appreciate the huge influence and social clout twitter has on shaping public opinion. What say you about the cynical use of twitter by governments to impose actual censorship on society? <<



I do not see India as a fragile democracy. Pakistan, maybe. But not India. India has been democratic since her independence in 1948.

I do not see an upside to censorship. It leads to distrust of the media. And usually backfires. The US as well is not a fragile democracy, yet, even here, one can see the dangers distrust of the media can lead to. I happen to be a Trumpista, and in our ranks distrust of the media runs high. Then add to it the perception that Big Tech is suppressing their voices.

I fail to see how censoring Muhammadu Buhari in Nigeria promotes democracy. Let Muhammadu Buhari do the censoring, and the rest of us damn him to hell. Censorship is inexcusable from Muhammadu Buhari, but it is even more so when it comes from western platforms to whom the mere notion of suppression of speech should be anathema.




GandalfTheGrey << And really, when you think about it, twitter is as vulnerable as the most robust democracies in the world to being "voted out" - as in if people like you are dissatisfied with their service, they can vote with their feet, and move to another platform. Twitter will care too - as it will affect their bottom line: less users, less revenue.<<


That didnt work out that well for conservatives.

Towards the end of last year, when things were boiling hot in the run up and aftermath of elections, a much disgruntled conservatives were gonna decamp en masse from Facebook, Twitter to Parler; but, in what was blatant collusion, Big Tech pulled the plug on Parler. Parler went dark. For something like three months.

Problem in that case was case of a few Big Tech companies dominating cyberspace. They stiffle competition until they are broken up

[GandalfTheGrey]

That didnt work out that well for conservatives.

Towards the end of last year, when things were boiling hot in the run up and aftermath of elections, a much disgruntled conservatives were gonna decamp en masse from Facebook, Twitter to Parler; but, in what was blatant collusion, Big Tech pulled the plug on Parler. Parler went dark. For something like three months.

Problem in that case was case of a few Big Tech companies dominating cyberspace. They stiffle competition until they are broken up

Indeed. And I was actually somewhat disturbed about that episode with Parler. What happened anyway? From memory some technical issue was blamed, but it seemed suspiciously like foul play to me.

And I suppose that episode lends support to your overall position - if a couple of platforms (ie facebook and twitter) really do monopolise the public-free-political-online-discussion space, then it really ought to be as free and fair as possible. And I think that speaks to an even broader topic about who should control and/or own this space, and is it appropriate for it to be in the hands of for-profit private companies.