Hacker News Reader

Comment by m00dy | Hacker News Reader

I agree with Turkey's position here.

I would also agree if the government had basic level of fairness to all of its citizens.

You assume Turkey has fair, not corrupted justice system, I can assure you that that's not the case. At the moment, it's quite political and almost impossible to rule anything against AKP or someone they have working relationship. So, a business man who has good relationship with the government can do something terrible and can easily get content that exposes this removed. This is not OK.

Referring to an authoritarian ruler and their clique as if they are the country is a disservice to the oppressed people of said country.

Turkey's population or its government?

Turkey’s position is that they need to have control over the news, the press, and other communication channels, the better to strangle dissent and effect purges.

As opposed to one class controlling what news reaches the populace, e.g., Twitter suppressing Hunter Biden story from NY Post?

Keep this in mind. Whenever you are the oppressor you have to either justify it as 'just moral retribution' or the violence as a 'very small and necessary evil' to prevent a huge catastrophe.. Both sides in the US have the same thinking. They are the good guys no matter what...

IMO, if you can throw 2 nuclear bombs on cities and still think of yourself as the good guys in that context.. I'm sure you can do anything you want and still think of yourself as good guys...

> As opposed to one class controlling

Not "as opposed" to that. It's the same sort of control, but much more so, and worse — and unless you actually think Turkey's control will make it better, it risks potentially being a bit of a distraction.

The current Turkish government seems to be looking out for the health and well being of it's citizens. That's why it required all of them to install the government issued CA cert so they could monitor everyone's connections for anything that might cause a problem.

Why?

Turkey has around 80milion people as its population and an elected government. I think these people have the right to summon an ambassador from not just twitter but all big tech giants.

Isn't it a bit of an admission though? Global corps are effectively as powerful as most nation-states now, to the point you need "ambassadors". I expect the next step will be to agree on a Geneva-like convention on this sort of diplomatic mission, where the local representative is guaranteed immunity in exchange for accepting equal representation of a country in the corporation.

Isn't it better to admit it than to not do anything about it?

They weren't just embassies, and the 'ambassadors' weren't just representing the companies, these are state censorship bureaus.

Does the "ambassador of Twitter" has diplomatic immunity, or they can send the ambassador to hail if Twitter breaks a local law?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com