Facebook ‘looking into’ hiding of posts calling for PM’s resignation in India

> I don't know why twitter does this.

A reality of scaring social media companies with regulatory threats.

People call for regulation and unsurprisingly their priority becomes keeping those who might regulate them happy with them.

O People, tell me, what material is Modi G's approval rating made of? That would be a material science breakthrough.

It seems as if his approval rating is just glued to the 60%-70% mark no matter what, even today.

If it keeps above 60% even with the current royal mess happening, I don't know what else Modi can do to loose the election.

Are people sick, and tired of INC so much that they still prefer Modi over an alternative of INC coming back to power?

I seriously hope that I won’t have to resort to name calling here on HN but are you for real? Oxygen and advanced life support is not unique to COVID and his tweets don’t say so either.

How the hell is this equivalent to shouting “FIRE” in a crowded place?

That principle was never intended as a reason for censorship. People shouting fire in a crowded theater should receive a trial. Facebook and Twitter aren't known for having a formal appeals process, and you're lucky if they even give you any attention.

Did you read that the statement of it being a heart attack came from the police (that are being used to intimidate people) and not medical professionals.

Oxygen is typically necessary for people with heart conditions. Any pressure on the supply will have impact all across the board.

Absolutely agree with this. In fact even if the minimum they do is walk back to how the country was before Modi, that would be a huge step forward. Not talking about politics here but just to a time when comedians and journalists didn't have to fear harassment for doing their jobs.

Also a fun fact - Modi has not done a single open, unscripted press conference in his entire 7 years of being in power! Can you actually believe that. He hasn't taken a single question on camera that was not pre-determined. Most likely because of the lesson he learned after the one interview he did with a reputed Journalist a while back before coming to power - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAGAYL8dtic

The effort that he puts into forming his public-image is actually impressive at some level.

Many Indian politicians learned the exact opposite lesson from the 90s to 2000s when China's economy far outgrew India's despite the supposed geographical, labor, and education similarities between the two (i.e. see the debate from a western perspective in [1][2][3]).

The idea that democracy and free markets help with economic growth simply didn't pan out for India w.r.t. its neighbor and biggest rival. As far as Modi is concerned, why keep trying something that doesn't work? Especially when the alternative is self serving.

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2003/07/01/can-india-overtake-chin...

[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/06/india-plays-catch-up/

[3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/05/think-again-indias-rise...

>I don’t understand what Modi is doing.

I assure you, neither does he.

Not a particularly intellectual or introspective man. He is a living example of the Peter Principle.

Too bad a billion people have to suffer for his incompetence.

It is better to be a consumer than a west leaning producer. One would never advance when the primary market is outside the country.

Here's the tweet:

https://twitter.com/khanumarfa/status/1386757457393770496?s=...

It's in the article as well. The text message was tweeted out.

I understand the wire can be considered left-leaning but does that automatically make everything they report on as false?

You can ignore their "alt-left" opinion but screenshots of texts and tweets are actual facts that happened.

He has charges against him for trying to find oxygen for his sick grandfather. What part of that does not involve the guy getting screwed?

Also, instead of criticizing the source, criticize the content.

https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...

> Often a person who is having a heart attack is given oxygen, which also helps heart tissue damage to be less.

COVID isn't the only disease that requires oxygen.

So far as I can see, “alt left” is a recent neologism to denigrate anyone who opposed Trump. What do you mean when you describe them thusly?

Yeah I've heard about it and will be looking into this. But I haven't actually ever seen it in the wild anywhere online which makes me wonder why it hasn't gained traction much.

For a country like India, the solution needs to be dead simple. Exploring a mastadon server a bit, it doesn't feel like it would cut it.

Exactly, we already have the “censorship resistant social network” (gab), but for reasons completely unrelated to not restricting speech third parties seem hell bent on nuking it from orbit. Such is the fate of any similar social network.

When I was younger, the Left was pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship. Now I'm a bit older and the Right is pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship.

It seems that the big factor is power. When you're in power, you use any excuse to silence the people who disagree. When you're not in power, you recognize that free speech is a universal principle.

The majority of the US is anti-abortion. Would you be fine if they cancelled the other side? Huge swaths are anti-gay. Should coming out mean people are free to cancel you? While the number of churchgoers is around half, the number of Christians in the US is well over 75%. Should claiming to be another religion (or no religion) mean that cancellation is in order?

Once everyone agrees that persecution is acceptable, all that's left is arguing about who to persecute.

The government is by the people and for the people. It reflects the values of the people. You claim that free speech is government only, but why does the government create ideas like hate speech then? Why force private people and businesses to desegregate if your inalienable rights only apply to the government? If rights are inherent in humans, but may be stripped at a whim by the majority, either they aren't actually rights or the pro-cancellation majority are actually despots.

The pro-cancellation argument is all sophistry to gain and increase power.

The First Amendment is about that. The principle is broader. We don't all accept restrictions on it.

The government can suggest it and they can choose to do it. No?

Censorship is censorship. No one cares about narrowly defining Freedom of Speech as conflated with the 1st Amendment except Americans .. and especially Americans who support censorship on giant monopolistic platforms.

So when democrats drag zuck in front of congress and ask why he isn't banning more right wingers, no government coercion?

Perhaps the issue is that the law does not protect free speech.

When you can define the laws, any content you dislike becomes "Illegal content".

Couldn't Facebook just call it Misinformation? Certainly authoritarian enough for Silicon Valley to rally behind.