"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go here.
The mission was PSLV-C37, but they also didn't tell you that the SpaceX flight was F9-106 or that it flew on booster B1058. Would you describe that as the BBC's anti-American stance at work? Or maybe the serial numbers tacked on to the missions aren't really newsworthy, and anyone who wants more specific details can type "104 satellites" into google?
I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive to the BBC here.
So because you were not compensated properly you decided to screw the users of your company who had nothing to do with you being compensated less. You act like you are some kind of martyr but you are the sole person responsible for the human rights violations of thousands and potentially millions of unsuspecting users who used that service. I hope you can sleep well tonight knowing how you deliberately violated privacy and rights of people unconnected with your compensation issue. If you were treated unfairly you should have resigned. Not fuck the company over.
Please stop posting flamewar comments to HN. We've had to ask you this before, and we ban accounts that won't stop doing it. The rules apply regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Edit: it looks like you've been breaking the site guidelines badly for quite a while now, by using HN primarily for political battle and posting lots of flamewar comments. That's seriously not ok. It's contributing to destroying this community, which is extremely vulnerable to such pressures.
I've been giving accounts a pass or letting them off with a warning when they've only been doing this during the collective fever of the last few days—but your account has been doing it for months, and that's very different. I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Look, the people who signed up for the service were mostly men looking to cheat on their wives if it makes you feel better.
Screw them. Why get married when you are just going to sign up on dating site to look for sugar babies who can't be bothered to put in the work so they sleep with married rich older men.
I don't think you realize how corrupt and immoral people are. I took great joy reading through the depraved private messages. It's technically prostitution if you wanna put it that way.
At this point I'd be willing to put money on knowing where you worked, so if you have any worry about being outed for that, well yeah.
I do kinda hope you're not just bullshitting though, because those assholes definitely had it coming and this just makes it all the more deliciously vengeful.
You may be getting thrills out of this disclosure but like sibling comments I recommend you delete these submissions. It is not painting you in a good light.
> Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified
Not justified at all. Nothing can justify censoring a sitting President and destroying a small competitor. America is on the wrong path. This I say as a observer of American politics. Big Tech has too much power in its hands now.
I mean sure, from the standpoint of he can still speak. But like I have mentioned elsewhere- I would like to see someone successfully get elected without a social media presence. Especially with COVID the town square is digital- I dont know that I can mentally treat twitter and others like little upstarts with no power. Remember when accounts were hacked and asked for payment in bitcoin?
What would happen if those accounts were hacked and someone talked about launching nukes?
You have to start asking if what happens on those platforms -REALLY- has no effect on the physical world. I would argue that their moderation actions can non-person a politician and ruin their career with little or no public input.
I dont know what the solution is- but I dont feel confident in a democracy where six media companies and about four tech companies control all that I can see, hear and read. That does not make me feel confident in the fourth estate.
Outside of tech, most people don't care about Twitter. If you were to ask a million people what their local Congressperson or Senator said on twitter, 999,999 of them wouldn't know that their legislator had a twitter account or the handle was.
Twitter and Facebook's bans of Trump are only news because Trump relied on them so heavily. They're not the primary means of communication for politicians, nor have they ever been.
Working with political groups for social media I have to disagree with you. Obama actually was a turning point where everyone basically agreed that social media is the one true way to keep your base engaged.
Your average person may not be on twitter I give you that- your activist however. They are very likely to be on twitter if not another emerging platform at this point. And the media is much easier to reach with Twitter. Just try getting organic traction on a press release with traditional media without social media. Its painful to think about honestly.
Having worked with the CA and OH Democratic Committees the past 3 election cycles (including both Obama elections), and having dozens of friends who worked in Georgia during the runoff, I can say that social media absolutely...did not budge the needle one bit.
It all came down to in-person contacts. The Black vote didn't turn out because they saw a tweet, they came out because people knocked on their door and talked to them and convinced them to brave the cold and vote.
And just as crucially: the Republican vote didn't come out despite all of Trump's tweets, and Cruz's tweets, and all the other GOPers posting on social media. The Republican voters stayed home despite all the social media begging them to vote because the GOP didn't have the same level of in-person events for the runoff as they did for the general election.
WhatsApp won't be able to do anything about it. Even with publishing full page ads. It is just a big waste of money. I have had so many of my relatives and friends move to Signal already. Big Tech companies haven't yet understood Indian psyche. If we make a move it will be en masse. So never antagonise Indians. Just see what happened to Tik Tok. The next big movement would be from Twitter if Twitter doesn't fix its ridiculous ideological censorship policies.
It's not just as simple as you make it sound. What this Censorship has done is conveyed to the World that American Government cannot be trusted. That America has 2 power centers not 1. The two power centers being American Government and Big Tech.
Any ban or removal should come from the elected Government. In this case it is the US Congress. This is what the World expects as this is how all Democratically elected Governments all over the World function. It is the Government which has a final say.
Now when Big Tech unilaterally decides to censor a sitting US President and bans a rival competitor this will cause every World leader and Government to sit up and take note. Everyone will ask themselves: are we now supposed to trust US Government for its word? What if tomorrow a private company decides to censor the US Government? If they can ban the US President's account they wield more power than even elected representatives. Why then should we liaison with US Government and why not directly talk to Big Tech as they seem to hold the power over even the US President.
Then it goes further than that: how do we trust that the incoming President won't be censored? Since all communications happen through a digital forum where one of the Big Tech companies is an intermediary in relaying such communications what is the guarantee that the communication is not tampered with? When Big Tech enjoys so much power in US, that it can censor the Government itself, then why can't this also be possible? If Big Tech can attach disclaimers to a sitting US President's content then why can't they tamper with the messaging too?
This sort of confusion existed for countries like Pakistan which has dual power centers: the elected Government and the military. You won't know whom to talk to as one can override the other. Which is why you have so many successful coups in Pakistan. What Big Tech has done is set a very dangerous precedent. Now no World leader will trust the word of the American Government at face value and will double/triple check every communication.
That boat has long sailed once Big Tech banned Parler and everyone cheered it. America is no longer a country where free speech is paramount. Atleast in other democratic countries Censorship happens through the elected Government. As a citizen you can always remove the elected representatives if you don't like the Censorship implemented by your elected representatives for whatever reason. You can't remove/vote out Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon et all because of the powerful grasp they have over digital communications and media.
The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America. Why would any Government trust American Government's word if a Private Company can undo it or act unilaterally without Congress approval? What does it convey to the World leaders? Is there 1 power center in America or 2? We used to mock Pakistan for having dual power centers (the elected Government and the military since their military doesn't come under the control of the elected Government). It caused a lot of confusion for World powers to interact with Pakistan as no one knew who the controller was. Was it the elected Government or the military? I'm seeing the same thing happening in America. Why should my Government take US Government seriously if a private company can ban/censor US Government communications?
Deleting a sitting US President's account is not going to be respected by any Government. Period.
> The very fact that Parler was banned by Big Tech and not by US Congress puts a very bad light on America.
That you think a private company being shunned by other private companies, is worse for free speech than a private company being banned by the government, shows you don't really understand the american definition of free speech.
I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators.
The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience.
I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.
In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it.
So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom.
US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.
That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it.
There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.
The thing I wrote about freedom has nothing to do with US or Parler or Facebook.
It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less.
And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?
The US government does draw the line at what it classifies to be utilities like electricity and water. AWS isn't considered a utility but I think it's far closer to one than the other companies. I'm personally skeptical that it should be because AWS encompasses a whole range of products, many of which have decent competition and aren't really "basic".
The ability to host stuff yourself on the internet is, however, a freedom I consider to be basic and necessary, so I do support net neutrality and related legislation that classify ISPs as utilities.
> exercises restraint on its immense natural power
I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint.
This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure.
It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.
It doesn't make sense to suggest that Big Tech is even capable of cutting off US government communication lines. Twitter & Facebook is not the US government's communication lines. The government can and regularly does publish communications on its own internet infrastructure it controls and regulates. The government also maintains continuous contact with a global free press that breathlessly and rapidly reports on anything the government and Trump himself wants to say.
Let's not misrepresent what this actually is: a private enterprise locking a political leader out of one of many communication platforms that the leader prefers. Twitter & Facebook are not and have never been critical requirements for the US government (or Trump) to communicate effectively.
There were US presidents before Twitter, you know that right?
Trump was the one who chose to keep using Twitter as his main medium of communication. He has a LOT of dedicated presidential communication infrastructure available to him. He is choosing not to use it.
The only thing that reflects badly on the US is trump.
Trade sanctions are a different thing to sanctions imposed for speech.
I'm not american either but if I'm going to comment on the USA, I'm going to respect their own definitions and culture. Meanwhile you're trying to make a point you don't fully grasp yourself. Sorry.
True, though the bad light is not that some companies and groups in US are limiting Free Speech, but because US government has lost monopoly on violence, judging others and dealing punishment. All they key components that holds together any state - with or without Free Speech(which exists only few centuries or so).
We do not know with whom we have to deal with - US government that is represented by People - including ELECTED President, or Thing that is not controlled by law and does not need to abide to it and can do as it wishes - just like terrorists.
Essentially at this point US does not exist - when the Thing, that will arise in place in US will start to abide to law and make agreements with others, then others will be more relaxed, but currently Democracy citadel of the whole World has ended. No one is going to take US as an example anymore and it would take a lot of work to gain that position where US once was and usually there is no way to climb back after such actions.
Not to mention what this all is causing to current World Order, where no one is going to seriously take US - all the doors that are now opened for all the shit to pour out.
Not being an American perhaps you should be even more concerned about what you say. This just doesn't change the US Governments view what what you've been up to, your government also will be taking a very dim view.
Parler banned Parler. They refused to take down material that was obviously detrimental to society. We would not put up with television stations planning to kidnap senators either. You don’t get to yell fire in a theatre. They were warned. They didn’t do anything. They banned themselves.
Exactly. Thanks for getting my point. Let us assume that the entire US Capitol plot was hatched in Parler. Even then that is just 1 transgression. Compare it to the history of social media enabling violence and that list runs into hundreds if not thousands (if you factor in the entire World). I haven't even covered threats of school shootings and other stuff that often gets overlooked.
When regime change happens in Middle Eastern countries Twitter was lauded for being a platform for voice of the oppressed. As long as it doesn't happen in America we should rejoice social media playing a pivotal role. The moment the same "Arab Spring" like situation strikes home all hell breaks loose.
> encourage competition through enforcing open standards
Big Tech destroyed this hope the moment it banned Parler and everyone cheered this ideological censorship.
Big Tech crossed every line in launching a coordinated attack on a rival. The damage this has done cannot be quantified. The ideal way to have gone about this is involvement of Courts/Legislature to decide if Parler should be banned or not. Not a group of private companies deciding to fuck a competitor. It is a horrible horrible precedent which has absolutely zero excuses.
I haven't seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites! Lost all respect for US after seeing how it embraced Censorship as a way to resolve issues. America the "land of the free". Yeah right!
I can't count the number of times Twitter and Facebook have been used for hatching/plotting terror attacks. No one banned these social media giants for failure to police their own sites. Was Facebook banned after the NZ Mosque shooter live streamed entire shooting spree? Was Twitter banned after it allowed ISIS to operate on its site with impunity for 2 years by posting propaganda and beheading videos? These are just few examples of plenty of examples of violence propagated on these sites. Yet they are given a free pass. Parler on the other hand had to face the consequences.
There are personal threats, hate-y speech, and all sorts of borderline calls to violence on Twitter, as well. It's baffling to me how supportive people are of censorship (given that it'll affect THEM at some point eventually), but even more baffling how facile the rationalizations are. We're being cognitively selective when we say that Parler 'caused' or facilitated violence, and Twitter never has!
Exactly! We were told that we are going to experience fascism for 4 years. In all of these 4 years the press was given so much freedom to say whatever it wants and publish whatever it wants on a sitting US President. I don't think Putin or Xi would have been kind to the press if they were ever treated the way Trump was treated. The journalists along with the media organisations would have disappeared overnight!
Yet here we are. In a purely fascist Censorship overdrive. And everyone is cheering it! The attack on US Capitol pales in comparison to what has happened now. This is far more damaging to USA than some bunch of idiotic insurrectionists who thought they'll be able to take over the US Capitol.
Does this vehicle not have a name? Or is the reporter too lazy to look it up? BBC never fails when it comes to its Anti-India stance.