Police In Delhi Have Descended On Twitter's Headquarters In The Country (buzzfeednews.com) 83
An anonymous reader shares a report: On Monday, a team of officers from the Special Cell, an elite branch of the Delhi Police in charge of investigating terrorism and organized crime in New Delhi descended on Twitter's offices in the city to "serve a notice" to Twitter's India head. Police also attempted to raid a Twitter office in Gurugram, a location that has been permanently closed, a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. The move came three days after Twitter put a "Manipulated Media" label on the tweets of half a dozen members of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, in which they had accused the opposition Congress party of scheming to damage Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for his handling of the second wave of India's coronavirus pandemic.
In an image they circulated, they claimed that the Congress party was giving special medical favors to journalists affected by the pandemic among other things. AltNews, an Indian fact-checking website, found that the image was forged. (The Congress party has also filed a police complaint against Sambit Patra, the BJP spokesperson who initially shared the image.) On Friday, India's IT ministry sent a letter to the company asking it to remove the labels. Twitter did not.
In an image they circulated, they claimed that the Congress party was giving special medical favors to journalists affected by the pandemic among other things. AltNews, an Indian fact-checking website, found that the image was forged. (The Congress party has also filed a police complaint against Sambit Patra, the BJP spokesperson who initially shared the image.) On Friday, India's IT ministry sent a letter to the company asking it to remove the labels. Twitter did not.
Censorship cold war is getting hot (Score:5, Interesting)
The company should remove all their foreign personnel and operate remotely
Re: Censorship cold war is getting hot (Score:2)
Yeah, I was wondering why they need a presence there. They should pack up and leave since the country is being hostile to them.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
But even Europe's FOS seems archaic compare to the U.S. In the U.S. I can rant my mouth on any topic as long as it doesn't come to fighting words or something that would indicate an imminent threat. In much of Europe I can't deny that the holocaust existed.
This is really interesting - because in the US, we've recently seen that those abusing freedom of speech have been able to convince an awful lot of people to get rid of our democracy, which would soon be followed by losing our freedom of speech. Funny how that works.
Re: Censorship cold war is getting hot (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're referring to is called Paradox of Tolerance [wikipedia.org].
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of focusing on being tolerant, focus on being kind.
Re: (Score:1)
Instead of focusing on being tolerant, focus on being kind.
You can't be kind unless you have first learned to be tolerant. Without tolerance your options would range from run screaming to fighting. With tolerance you can shrug it off, ignore with a smile, and still be nice to the next person.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because they're a democratic or republic government doesn't mean they have freedom of speech rights. Do business in a country without FOS, and you get your headquarters raided when they don't like something you publish.
Is something a right if you can be oppressed, by anyone, for exercising it?
Freedom of religion, for instance. Is it a right if companies can and do ban you for practicing that religion?
In the US, we like to tout ‘freedom of speech’, but how ‘free’ is it when you
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand what a right is. Basically it is a limitation on the government and even that is limited.
For example, all the 1st amendment does is limit Congress in passing laws removing your right to speech. It doesn't stop a Judge from ordering you to shut up, and throw you in jail if you don't follow the order, if I can convince a Judge that your speech is harming me, a high bar but not impossible, things like slander etc.
Rights are always limited, with the most famous being that "your right to swing
Re: (Score:2)
You and the GP misunderstand.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
From the US Constitution Bill or Rights, the 9th Amendement:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(emphasis added)
Rights exist whether or not they are upheld by governments or others.
Re: (Score:1)
So a bunch of slave holders and land stealers said some bullshit and you act like it is a holy word.
Re: (Score:1)
Noble sentiment, but rather undermined by the fact that it really only meant white men, no women or other ethnicities. It seems to be limited to citizens too, other men don't enjoy the same rights.
Good first draft for the time but needs modernizing.
Re: (Score:2)
You would love to think white women don't support those white men you disagree with, but it's just not the case. Women tend to believe in the same kind of dogma men do. Who knew.
I realize this is slashdot, so you may have a much more limited experience around women.
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to tell me Mexican police aren't going to suggest a bribe so you don't go to jail?
Re: (Score:1)
Don't know where you live, but I do believe you can't call yourself a democracy or republic and then pull stunts like this. Same with countries like Russia, Israel, Turkey, and Iran.
Indeed, in the civilized Democratic world, if the government doesn’t like what you’re saying, they get big corporations to silence you. There’s none of this “sending the government to silence you” shit. Oh my, how third-world.
Oh, and we certainly don’t have manipulated media.
It is to laugh.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Given that Modi is greatly restricting free speech and media, I would not give him any benefit of doubt. So, it's media companies versus dictators.
Re: (Score:2)
> Given that **Jack Dorsey** is greatly restricting free speech and media, I would not give him any benefit of doubt.
FTFY
According to Jack Dorsey, Jack Dorsey's company is involved in restricting free speech. Which even Jack Dorsey agrees is against what Jack Dorsey's belief of what is correct behavior.
Usually I disagree with Jack Dorsey, but I can put aside political differences and agree with Jack Dorsey on this incident.
---
"At a congressional hearing on misinformation and social media, Dorsey said Tw
Re: (Score:2)
While you may be right, Jack Dorsey is a private citizen with a private company. Modi is the leader of the largest "democracy" in the world. What should and should not be allowed with free speech rights differs between private companies versus governments.
Modi is not asking Twitter to have more free speech. Modi is asking Twitter to clamp down on free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the government is angry because their official's posts were tagged as fake news. One could argue that such actions undermine the authority of the government, especially if part of the population relies on Twitter and Facebook for their world view.
Re: Censorship cold war is getting hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares though about undermining the authority of the government, except for the government? It should be every citizen in the world's duty to help criticize or mock their government in order to keep them honest. The last thing we need are more governments who say "believe everything we say and question nothing!"
Re: (Score:2)
Does the government not get voted in by a tally of votes of the citizens that are eligible to vote? If so, they are a democracy. Anything else you ascribe to being a democracy isn't really mandatory for the world democracy.
I mean, look at how difference Western Democracies practice democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, "liberal democracy". Which means adherence to rule of law (the word "liberal" does not mean "anti-conservative" in this context, in case it confuses people who think it's a synonym for marxism).
Re: (Score:3)
The problem existed well before Modi. India has consistently ranked near the bottom of the World Press Freedom index, hovering around #130-140 out of 180.
https://rsf.org/en/india [rsf.org]
Modi has, of course, doubled down on that instead of correcting course. There's really no doubt to give or withold the benefit of. This raid is the culmination of a long series of requests from the BJP to remove content related to (for example) the recent farmers' protests, as well as threats of arresting Twitter employees.
I would h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Given that Modi is greatly restricting free speech and media, I would not give him any benefit of doubt. So, it's media companies versus dictators.
That bastard. I’m just glad to live in a country that has a media which puts the people first, and which eschews bias for virtues like fairness integrity.
You know what else, I hear that in India, the government can open an investigation into you, and if anyone tells you about it, or if you tell anyone else about it, the government will throw you are them i
Re: (Score:1)
Have you worked with the Indian government? Unlike the Chinese, where you grease one palm and they lead you through the pitfalls, it is not uncommon that you bribe one person, they get out of the way, only to have someone up ahead demanding their cut. Though they have moved forward, the government is still a very corrupt system there, and a raid on Twitter could be caused by almost anyone in the chain, rather than due process.
Re:Censorship cold war is getting hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I agree with OP. Forego a local office and you have a lot less worries. Especially in countries with governments like that.
You missed the part where the local office is a REQUIREMENT to offer service in the country in question. India already banned TikTok. They can ban Twitter just as easily. The entire point of this is to create local hostages. Either you have local hostages, or you can't do business in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
That just means that Twitter has to hire a whipping boy to man an entirely disposable office in India.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where the local office is a REQUIREMENT to offer service in the country in question.
Irrelevant. Once Acme Inc offers any type of service on the internet, it's offering service worldwide. If you accept that every little jurisdiction can demand every company with presence on the internet to have a local office, you're nuts.
Nope, merely having a presence on the internet does not mean you fall under the jurisdiction of every little self-appointed internet-sheriff.
And you EUSSR wankers can downvote this as much as you want. Us here in the U.S. do not care.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, merely having a presence on the internet does not mean you fall under the jurisdiction of every little self-appointed internet-sheriff.
Offering a service in country X, taking money from advertisers in country X, etc, subjects you to the law of country X. Doesn't matter where your head office is, doesn't matter where your servers are, nobody cares. A country can block your servers at the network level, or it can tell the app store vendors to take down your app in their jurisdiction, etc. If Country X tells Apple "take down this app",
Re: (Score:2)
Or they evict you.
And that's my point. They cannot evict you if you don't have a presence.
Offering a service in country X, taking money from advertisers in country X, etc, subjects you to the law of country X.
Oh, so just because Twitter is on the internet, and therefore offers service in Saudi Arabia, it should be subject to Sharia law?
Nope, it doesn't work that way.
A country can block your servers at the network level
We've seen many instances of how well that works. As a network engineer I call bollocks on that one. I've gotten around many (if not all) of those futile attempts. For example, it's trivial to get free internet service on cruise ships.
or it can tell the app store vendors to take down your app in their jurisdiction, etc. If Country X tells Apple "take down this app",
Right. You don't need an app to be present
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Twitter will do what is best for business, it's not to carry out some crusade for or against censorship, aside from the PR value in the tabloids. I suppose it is best for people to seek out alternatives to Twitter that can circumvent the blockage if they want to get through to the outside, and see if it makes a difference
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which only leaves room for open source/free software, unhindered by business needs, aside from the need to communicate freely and reliably. We'll have to make "burner" apps, use once and delete
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look how well it worked with Google in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the only true freedom is anarchy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah...the world is a cruel place (Score:1)
A lie cannot oppress you if you have access to the truth.
Suppressing information is the mechanism by which access to truth is curtailed. Relying on the judgement of one censor or group of censors is a much less robust mechanism for preventing oppression than total information freedom.
Die gedanken zind frei, as an old protest song says.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to decriminalize libel and slander, at least in cases where the truth is not hidden.
You're also trying to decriminalize psychological/emotional abuse.
Re: Yeah...the world is a cruel place (Score:1)
Is it abuse I tell you a truth that you don't want to hear?
Some people would say so. If a truth like "no, there is no epidemic of police violence" or "Communism has killed tens of millions" or "no you were not specially chosen by space aliens to be their prophet" cuts against the personal identity some people have built for themselves, that could be quite abusive.
Libel laws are quite permissive in the US. To be found guilty you must be knowingly lying with intent to cause damage.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of words that will see you cancelled, sometimes by a bullet. Try telling people you want to fuck their wife or young daughter, you will find very few who ignore the words because they're only words.
Re: Yeah...the world is a cruel place (Score:1)
If I say I want to fuck your wife or (adult) daughter, maybe I'll catch a bullet from you, but is it within the purview of the state to jail me for it? Or am I free to the consequences of giving voice to my more antisocial desires?
There's also a difference between "I want to fuck your daughter" and "I think your daughter is fuckable." One is more of a call to action and the other is more of an expression of an opinion. You might be justified (perhaps not legally, but still) in reaching for your gun in the f
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is where that line is. There is a whole spectrum of people, from ones who seem to have no feelings to those who are hyper-sensitive. Generally what happens is society decides on the line and if you go over,you get shunned in one way or another. The fact is that you can hurt feelings with words, as much as some don't believe it, it still happens. And some seem to believe they have a right to hurt others for various reasons.
Personally, I believe it is best to err on the side of politeness, which c
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech means the right to say bad things. We all have to get used to the idea that people should be allowed to say things we hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quit trying to add exceptions. You have the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
People have the right to say false things about vaccines, or Trump, or race, or sexual orientation, or whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fact-checkers found image to be fabricated. Twitter labels it as such. Twitter refuses to remove the factual labels when pressed by party fabricating/sharing the image.
Free speech has nothing to do with it, dude. Not to mention free speech doesn't apply to a private company's platform.
And all Jordan's advice is good for is leading to exactly what we have now. No one willing to discuss politics civilly, because everyone wanted to just stay out of it. Now, because people just kept avoiding politics, every lit
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech has nothing to do with it, dude.
Modifying one's speech by placing banners or notifications has a lot to do with free speech. Political speech has for much of history had nothing to do with being true but pushing a viewpoint. Have you ever seen political cartoons? Their entire medium is distorted reality.
Not to mention free speech doesn't apply to a private company's platform.
Depends. Under current US law it doesn't. That is subject to change at the will of the legislature however. And outside of the US, in say India, they are free to regulate as they see fit. If they say free speech applies to a private
Re: (Score:1)
Me following the annoying "Jesus" preachers with a microphone on the street and factually disproving what he is saying doesn't limit his free speech. Just like Twitter throwing the label on doesn't limit BHP members speech. Likewise, Twitter is in no way beholden to follow any Indian laws. If India doesn't like it, that's India's problem to deal with. The fact is they are using a platform they do not control nor own - and can collectively suck the nuts of Twitter. India can block/ban if they want, and Twitt
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody got their speech modified. The Bharatiya Janata Party got it's speech posted in it's entirety and then the fact checker's speech was posted (also in it's entirety). Freedom of speech necessarily cannot include freedom from dissent.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has a right to whatever speech it want's to engage in, at least in the US. As far as I am concerned it should be allowed to effect that in any fashion it likes including censoring viewpoints on its platform.
What Twitter should NOT enjoy is special protection of law that every other entity that isn't an Internet publication dose not get. Namely CDA-230 needs to go! A newspaper for example would still face exposure to libel laws if it ran counter factual and salacious statements even on its editorial
Re: (Score:3)
CDA-230 was not created for twitter or social media. It existed long before them. It was to allow forums to remove content they did not want there without becoming liable for anything they missed. It allowed cooking forums to remove all posts not related to cooking but not become legally liable to everything. Without section 230 sites like github can't exist. You can't have machine learning specific forums because without that if you moderate anything you become a publisher and liable for the rest.
We need s
Re: (Score:2)
What Twitter should NOT enjoy is special protection of law that every other entity that isn't an Internet publication dose not get. Namely CDA-230 needs to go! A newspaper for example would still face exposure to libel laws if it ran counter factual and salacious statements even on its editorial pages! The same should be true for Twitter!
Explain what special protection Twitter has that a print publication doesn't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Modi is just following the authoritarian habit of attacking the press as the enemy of the people. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Trump all do it to get support and stop them from reporting bad stuff about dear leader. It works quite well.
Scammers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad the Special Police Unit does not spend more time dealing with the scammers in their country who are busy ripping off the elderly and those who are not very tech savvy. Maybe we should start a campaign posting how the Indian scammers were talking shit about the Bharatiya Janata Party, Maybe then they will give a shit about this.
Manipulated Media ... (Score:2)
The move came three days after Twitter put a "Manipulated Media" label on the tweets of half a dozen members of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, in which they had accused the opposition Congress party of scheming to damage Indian prime minister Narendra Modi for his handling of the second wave of India's coronavirus pandemic.
So the Congress party planned to criticise dear leader Narendra Modi for completely fucking up the 2nd wave Covid response and thus, through his utter incompetence, causing the death of tens of thousands of Indians? Sounds like the Congress party was doing their job as an opposition party.
Re:Manipulated Media ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Modi has passed Trump territory and is well on his way to being the next Ferdinand Marcos. I say that as an Australian of Indian origin.
But Modi is a Hindu (Score:2)
And most Indians are Hindu. So they vote for Modi. Very simple.
And the alternative Congress are pretty corrupt.
Educated Australians do not care about democratic principals, they just introduced exit visas. Why should poor Indians care? What counts who aligns with out emotional prejudices.
We’re always told (Score:1)
Freedom of speech has consequences.
Well, these are the consequences in that part of the world.
They police weren’t coming to jail them, they were coming to serve a notice of violation. Police here do that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice of what violation?
Buffoon governments need to be disintermediated (Score:2)
Ad sales etc can just be run virtually, Pandemic style, from somewhere with a more relaxed government.
If the Indian government wants to ban Twitter altogether in India if it doesn't have a subsidiary there, then just block India from the service.
On the one hand that stands a risk of further Balkanizing the Internet. On the other hand, surely the sane faction in India will get severely annoyed at a Government that keeps banning their access to the rest
Re: (Score:2)
Like, why does Twitter actually HAVE an office in India?
Because it is required by law. This is the way that governments around the World will curb the power of US social media and search companies (I believe Turkey "invented" this method). Did you really believe that the rest of the World would let US companies affect/decide their next elections such as they did in the US? The exact legislation will of course be different from country to country (and India is in the more autocratic end of the spectrum) but Twitter, Facebook and Google will be regulated in every
Re: (Score:2)
The social media companies just broadcast what anybody says, and their politically objective algorithms just amplify (bring to the fore) those voices that the most other people take an interest in, so "drawing interest" tends to snowball exponentially, leading to a bias toward sensationalist posts.
I guess any country is free to put up a "great wall of Chi
Please watch the video before commenting! (Score:2)
Please watch the video before forming opinions based on manipulated news.
It shows some officers enquiring if Twitter office is in that building and the building security tells them it's not. They go back to their cars and leave.
They had gone to serve a legal notice and wanted to ask Twitter the name of the person in charge whose name needed to be put.
Between the " ban bitcoins because terrorists might use it", to "Twitter should have freedom to ban POTUS and censor articles while still not being responsible