Most likely the root cause of this is an internal feature at Twitter called "per-country takedown."
If someone from Germany asked (and had a valid court order) that the Tweet be taken down for German users, then Twitter has the ability to disable the Tweet for people coming from German IPs.
I don't agree with this, I lobbied heavily against it while I worked there to no avail, but it's a solid explanation for why you wouldn't be able to see a Tweet in different regions.
Did that policy change?
My honest guess? Cache coherency is hard, man.
Obviously, Hacker News is censoring me.
But what happens when Zuckerberg meets with German political leaders to discuss the silencing of anti-refugee posts on Facebook? We know that the technology exists. If you've ever advertised on Facebook, you've seen how easily one piece of content can be given massive priority while others can go quietly ignored. But that's not how it seems to the user. It just seems like all of their friends are thinking one way....so they should too.
There are massive implications to this.
Those are not just words, asylum centers are being burned to the ground, refugees are attacked, just recently some were killed on the border the EU, just yesterday someone tried and almost suceeded in killing a politician who helped refugees.
You have to be insane to support this as free speech unless you support these nazis.
— Widely attributed to H. L. Mencken
FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of downvotes, and I don't even like things being ranked by upvotes. But the rough spirit of focusing on substance and backing up claims, that I like.
This is what the US internet looks like, post-Arab Spring.
Actually I think theres's big future for this kind of censorship, if performed well, can be hard to detect and hard to test(think about A/B testing). So I disagree with 'subtle', it's just our enemy get smarter.
I've been infuriated by Facebook because I have a local events group on high priority in my feed, but FB has decided I only want to see about one post in five. So I miss a lot of news I want to see.
Meanwhile I still get porn posts on the various technology groups I read, even though I keep asking not to see similar content.
I'd have no objection to a good AI editor curating my feed. But FB has a very bad AI editor making bad choices for reasons that ignore my interests, and I really don't want that at all.
But a huge centralized curator that decides what everybody reads is something people feared for centuries. It does not really matter if its intention is benign.
Edit: Instead of downmods, please post reasons why you should use networks run with secret codes and which suck your data into their proprietary databases.
Hacker News itself explicitly doesn't share their fork of the Arc forums, and don't allow raw access to your data.
Your criticism is still valid, obviously there is no way to validate that a GNU Social instance is not running modified code.
But the federation itself mitigates this to some extent. If you don't trust one instance, you can always fire up your own.
I've now registered my username on Kloak as @greg, and am recommending to all my friends to move off of Twitter to similar networks.
Here are some networks to ditch twitter for:
- SpiderOak's Kloak (in beta): https://spideroak.com/solutions/kloak
- Indie's Hearbeat (in alpha): https://ind.ie/
- Twister: http://twister.net.co/
- Vole: http://vole.cc/
Bye Orwell, won't be seeing you in the land of free speech!
Without honesty, there will be no progress. I shouldnt be afraid of posting my opinions and expressing my freedom of speech because i might lose my livelihood. But its the sad reality.
If I go into a supermarket and shout, "I hate black people and they shouldn't even be in America!" I am going to suffer the consequences, but probably only from the people who heard me. Everyone else will have heard it second-hand and may due to social circle pressure decide to sever ties with me. The only way I'll actually suffer long-term (other than being beat up by a mob) is if I was famous since people like it when famous people do things.
The problem is, people continue to think that "The Internet" is just some kind of throwaway void where they can spout whatever they want. Justine Sacco probably isn't a racist, and was probably making a joke about "white privilege" or "white bubble". But she showed poor judgement in assuming that writing that in a public space would be benign. Even with her lack of followers. Text is not a good way to facilitate a joke that requires context. Her joke about AIDS and Africa and white people not being affected is based on some context no one but herself had.
If _I_ am at the supermarket and I hear some old cranky dude yell that out. It's a story I'll probably tell my friends about. They in turn may decide to use that as an inside joke/catchphrase of our circle of friends. But there is no way I'll repeat that to someone else outside of the group of friends that know what the context is. I definitely won't post it on Twitter, not without at least having posted the story about the crazy old man in the supermarket.
So I kinda laugh when people say they can't say anything that's not "PC" anymore. That to me just means they want to really spout some really offensive opinions to a public audience without paying the consequences of doing so. Then of course when there is kickback, they blame it on people being too "PC"
That is what you call justice?
We have effectively returned to the days of witch hunting and public hangings, but this time our medium isn't the town square. It's the Internet.
Justine Sacco's tweet was a joke. And she even subscribed to the very "liberal" thought that was shaming her. Her joke was tongue-in-cheek. But her shamers weren't liberals. They didn't care about actual reason and discourse and open-mindedness. They weren't the liberals that we think of today; the ones that were always on the right side of history. The ones that marched alongside MLK. The ones that stood up for women's rights. No, they were "progressives". Pseudo-liberals that fight for the oppressed by oppressing others. The open-minded, forward thinking, altruistic group that wants everyone to be heard...until they disagree with their views. Then they must return to the mob-mentality of the stone ages, in the name of "progress".
These people don't care about progress. They don't care about social justice. They care about the entertainment of destroying someone's life, the feeling of dehumanizing another human being, and the gratifying thought that in doing so, they were being a model human...an enlightened individual...better than the rest. But they aren't. They are the most simple, selfish, uncompassionate, and closed-minded beings of our generation.
And we support them. We encourage them.
We have no idea how stressful and oppressive of a world we are creating for ourselves. And all in the name of pseudo "anti-oppression". We must remember the importance of true freedom of speech. The importance of unpopular thoughts and discussions. The importance of open discourse without the threat of condemnation. Where everyone can be heard and we can build a better world together. Where the enlightened truly care about helping the unenlightened to see things differently. Where true progress is bred.
Is your reasoning that only people attacking Justine Sacco were "progressives" and "liberals?" Does that mean everybody, to put for a lack of a better term, "on the right" understood the context of Justine Sacco's tweet and did not join in and pile on?
I mean in the context of just those tweets, what she said was pretty racist and offensive. So the implication that only liberals attacked her means that either conservatives didn't attack her because they already understood what she meant by those tweets (hard to imagine anyone could in that moment since one of the biggest things about it was that she was on a plane and couldn't defend herself) or they didn't believe those tweets were racist (which they were when taken without context).
Dividing people by framing this as a left/right issue is not the way to go if you really want to stop the internet mob.
Big Think - People Will Misjudge You Unless You Manipulate Them:
Expected by who? The "expectation" you think everyone has, everyone does not have. In this discussion we're referring to this expectation as "PC" or "political correctness".
Where does someone's right to say what they want without consequence end and my right to have a thought or reaction to what I heard begin?
Your right to speak your opinion coexists with people's right to have a reaction. This might be socially inconvenient, but that has always been the reality. Nothing has changed because the avenue expression is online, just the audience and availability of your speech.
But if you walk into a bar or post on Twitter talking about how much you dislike ___, don't be surprised if someone has a reaction. I certainly won't be inclined to start a Socratic dialogue exploring why you dislike ___ in an attempt to persuade you.
You wouldn't spout a racist manifesto on a talk show, don't expect to be able to do it on a medium that everyone can see and think nothing will come of it. You need to be acutely aware of your audience and reach when you speak.
In this context, do not be surprised if people cannot separate their judgment of the comment from the person making it. Especially when the context is "I just read this awful comment on my screen by a person I don't know and already dislike."
The problem 0x49 referred to is the polarization of discussions, where any attempt of moderation and nuance of the arguments is punished immediately with personal attacks and accusations of siding with the enemy. So it isn't just audience and reach that you should be acutely aware, it is also if you should speak on some matters at all. If you step in and say something in a polarized issue that doesn't fit someone's sensibilities in the extremes it makes you a target.
How about some concrete examples: did Justine Sacco suffer social consequences for speech, or was she harassed by an online mob? How about Anita Sarkeesian?
I'm pretty OK with that.
Generalizations never work.
My brother works with a guy that talks about islam contantly, to the point that it makes many people in the company feel uncomfortable. Should this person be fired?
i would have no problem if we gave equality to all, but its just not happening.
Guy is interrupting business. If people don't want to be around him. He needs to go. The company is not there for you to spread your theist or atheist ideas. Keep it to your private life where it belongs to.
To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult.
That doesn't sound as that much of a problem.
Awareness of this issue is dramatically increasing by the day and these public figures (among others) are leading the charge.
Its also not just being treated like an 'asshole'. Its a complete destruction of ones personal life, abusive behavior such as harassment, and many times the mob moves to the persons place of employment and the business doesnt want the negative publicity, and fires the employee.
Does a person deserve this sort of treatment? Arent we trying to stop online bullying?
Mobs are fickle. While today, you are on the side of the mob...tomorrow the mob might be against you. At that point, it will be too late to protest because it is already an acceptable practice in our society.
The government doesnt even really need to pass laws to control the people. The mobs will take care of it for them.
Its the wet dream of the nsa and should scate you as much as it does me.
The people that do successfully have the power, which means enough money that a firing doesnt matter.
Isn't this what JTRIG's "Online Covert Operations" is all about?
Defusing and diffusing social movements before they get traction is something many organizations with money are going to find appealing whether or not it works...
Facebook understands this quite well and is the canonical example of the model; but if you don't think that "Steering the conversation" is a core value proposition for privately operated social networks ( including Hacker News ) that are free to the general public; you are naive.
Circumventing that would be near impossible.