Twitter suspends Sci-Hub account amid Indian court case
twitter.com
twitter.com
Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want.
But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms and the 'problem' they tried to remove is still there.
Instead of using PayPal, they'll just send Bitcoin to them instead which that is harder to stop. Sure, they can blacklist the address, they'll just create a thousand more wallet addresses.
These bans are becoming pointless. If not, making it even worse.
[0] https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-pa...
I realize this is heresy, but maybe they should not be?
> But that's not the actual issue, the real issue is coordinated and targeted bans from 'Big Tech'. These bans will always result in users using alternative platforms
Good. Please continue the coordinated and targeted bans. Compared to a Twitter that can't ban people, a diverse ecosystem of alternative services is a usable second place.
So when the Big Tech companies start to coordinate, target and suspend YOUR accounts for 'any reason' that is also good?
If there were real alternatives nobody would give a shit about being banned from one. The outrage shows these companies are too big.
there are plenty of alternatives functionally -- but no alternatives realistically.
Having watched Twitter from some distance, isn't that half the reason it's so popular?
You can get up to 95% if you interpret that as “a moderation policy where spamming slurs at other users isn't looked on kindly” – but if “basic decency” is your definition of “left-wing”, then what's up with your “right-wing”‽
Keep in mind that a company having large market share does not imply they hold that position undeservedly. You actually need to show that this is the result of exercising market power, not consumer choice.
If I ask an alcoholic if he really wants to spend his days in a drug induced stupor, a good rebuttal would not be "Well he has every right to do that".
No it won't. There are two app stores of consequence. Google just nuked free speech supporting Parler from their app store for example, trying to force them into ideological censorship compliance.
When aggressive monopolies are doing the censoring in tandem, it's identical to an act of violence by the companies in question as there are not reasonable other channels left. It stops being a matter of a stray private corporation merely controlling how its property is used and becomes a matter for the government to defend the people being assaulted.
Monopolies are always ultimately a matter of force and the sole way to deal with them short-term is to call upon the government to use its legal powers to stop the violent monopolists.
A coup definitely occurred the other day, just not the one the laughable headlines proclaim ('unmasked, unarmed man in buffalo hat and jeans conquers US Government in daring toppling of superpower!'); rather, by big tech over speech. They've all been waiting for this moment of convenience (it's a Patriot Act kind of moment). From here on out they'll unabashedly use their co-monopoly over everything online to dictate speech.
Quick question for everyone on HN: who actually seized power given our present context? The clown in the buffalo hat, or the billion & trillion dollar corporations that control most of the channels of communication? Now that that power move is taken care of some of the interested parties in the government will put the companies to work on more interesting privacy-destroying tasks.
And they're succeeding all too well, and very much in cahoots with most governments, elected or not. Ultimately decentralisation of power/wealth has never succeeded in human history so far. It's just that in the last century or two, it has reached ridiculous levels of disparity, even though superficially it seems as if ordinary people are more empowered than ever.
There should be some regulation to make the moderation team independent of the company. That is probably a good first step in breaking apart these Big Tech giants. Else we should all be ready for balkanization of the internet which is where we are headed. Whether it is a good thing or not only time will tell.
All the manufacturing power is in Asia. The market is wide open for competition if the big players make space for it.
Don't focus on the clown, keep an eye on the paramilitary folks who showed up with guns and restraints.
Isn't there a whole argument that if they are allowed to censor / ban, they should not enjoy the freedom of being labelled "publishers"? I don't understand that argument legally speaking, but that is an argument in opposition to this.
Some want to change this and it will be interesting to see what happens
If you have a technologically sophisticated user base who is on board with cryptocurrency, you'll only lose 90% of your payments switching from credit cards to cryptocurrency.
Don't minimize the damage that these bans and actions do merely because there is, in principle, a way to route around the damage. It's still plenty enough to kill off businesses, and anything with network effects that wants to be a platform will end up being stunted before it can take off.
The article isn't claiming it's illegal for Twitter to do this. They're saying they shouldn't. There are lots of things that people and entities are well within their legal rights to do that we rightfully criticize.
Assuming the big services are the agents of manipulation usually suggested here.
And assuming blocking accounts will drive some groups to use more neutral services (I absolutely no idea if this is the case, but I imagine censorship resisting services have a more freee software like ethos than profit driven)
It could mean that it could be studied to what extent the platforms shape things in relation to the users them selves.
Since this language is divisive and emotionally charged is there any evidence to back this up? Is there direct evidence of active coordination or, per Occam's Razor, was it simply a set of similar reactions in response to the same stimuli?
Example is this account: https://twitter.com/gurmeetramrahim
Quoting from the article:
"In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."
Quoting:
"In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."
There’s a developed discussion.
A. To be useful B. To be right C. Other