jdauriemma parent
You would have a point in an alternate universe where the Indian government is a credible guardian of whatever we might deem public discourse. In this universe, there are no good guys in this conflict.
I know I will be downvoted to oblivion., Rather than Twitter I would rather have the public discourse which is guarded by Indian Govt/ Judiciary, parliament and media irrespective of the spectrum to which they have a bias.
If tomorrow, I say something religious in nature, would such a thing be banned by some person in California who decides it is not rational thought?
You're touching on an important point, which is that users are essentially powerless in these online platforms. They are authoritarian entities whose interests align with users only incidentally, if at all. I do not think the state is better, as the state is generally captured by commercial interests anyhow.
I do not just mention the state, While a specific Govt may get sold out to vested interests, I completely believe judiciary, constitution(Voting rights) and media are stable enough to create checks and balances.
I have seen this in my country in the past fifteen years.
Yeah but they still don't have a stake in the way that users do. Shouldn't the users have an ownership interest since their contributions are a necessary condition for the continued existence of those platforms?
What sort of ownership interest do you mean?
I always thought entertainment and audience to promote your personal brand is what you get in return.
Users perform labor for Facebook every time they post, comment, or like. That labor produces real, material value for Facebook. The compensation for that labor rightfully must be negotiated with those who did that productive work. IMO the only just competition is in a material form, including users having the prerogative to vote for a certain number of seats on the Board of Directors.
Since censorship is almost certain be implemented by just not showing content that is banned in the countries where it is banned rather than an American company allowing the Indian government dictate what it can show Americans what do you do if Indians realize they need a vpn to get the whole picture and start bypassing government restrictions.
Better to be banned by Twitter than be imprisoned by the Indian government, surely?
I still believe rule of law exists in India. I would also revolt the moment something otherwise happens to it.
What makes you think I don't speak up against it or wont vote against it?
The three links you posted don't require me to take up arms :)
1) It is a regrettable event in which courts have did the right thing.
2) Sorry, I cannot read it.
3) It is an opinion column in an online publication.
No good guys but the oligarchic silicon valley information complex is a definite bad guy that crowds out competing platforms where alternative views might flourish.
No argument here, but I don't think the Modi government constitutes a competing platform.
Indian media existed before Facebook and twitter.
And if they were the ones trying to shut down Facebook et al. then that would be relevant.
The only competition out there is going to abuse India's market and create an even worse paradigm shift. Newer platforms will be forced to be monitored/moderated by the state instead of a third party, which invites political oppression and censorship on a scale that's hard to fathom.