Slashdot Mirror
India Moves To Censor Social Media
An anonymous reader writes "India's Telecoms minister has prompted an uproar after it was revealed he met with executives from Google and Facebook to pressure them into screening 'objectionable' content. Critics argue it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path. 'He denied such a demand was censorship. There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.'
The real story is this: India Moves TO Censor Social Media ... but it fails in the face of /. dupes./a.
You can't handle the truth.
The only route that is left to us at this point. in all countries, around entire world. we the people should just ignore those would-be controllers.
Read radical news here
Silencing dissent... Yet another American "job" getting outsourced.
I jest, but it's not like the US (where I was born and live) hasn't tried this sort of thing. The Internet kill switch, taking down sites without due process, and the need to filter the whole country.
This sort of shit needs to stop. Which will only happen when the government is "for the people" again, and not "for the corporations."
Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".
Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm offended people like him come to power.
But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me unless I'm China or India. How long do these countries have to be civilized before they develop enough confidence to withstand an insult? What are we at now, 5,000 years, 8,000 years and they still can't take a few unkind words? Maybe they should think about starting again, from scratch. Scratching in the dirt with a stick, to plant some food that is, right back to the beginning.
There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.
I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
..any normal human being
And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"? What's next for this jackass? Is he going to "decide" what is and is not art? *facepalm*
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Here's a relevant quote from the article:
Telecoms and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal met executives from Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Monday to ask them to screen content, but no agreement with the companies was reached. Stinking of rotten body odor and unwashed genitalia, he excused himself from the streetside interview and urinated on a curb, hypocritically kicking a dog that was trying to do the same thing.
Returning to the coffee shop where the interview was taking place, spots of stray urine all over the crotch of his pants, Kapil gave both his pits a whif and resumed the interview. The representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo asked him what his background was. Kapil stated that all of them should know, as Kapil is a coder for an outsourcing company with all of the big four as clients. "Hell," he stated, "it's the least you could do for me and my coworkers, we write your software." He then pointed at a pile of dog feces near the table and said, "You pay us instead of Americans to write code like that - Your country must be veddy veddy bad!"
When asked what Kapil's plans for the future were, he said, "Well, politics, obviously, but my team and I are finishing up the new Slashdot website. It works everytime, with every browser. They came to us because they couldn't make it themselves, and I am happy to say that is why people come to India for best coding practices. We are also responsible for adding all of the flashy stuff to Youtube, and for making Yahoo relevant again." After scratching his testes through his pants, Kapil coughed and said, "that's all. Thank you, come again," as he pulled a long stick of jerky out of his pocket, held it against his crotch pointing outward, and asked all of the representatives to shake it one-by-one. They all reluctantly did, as their holiday bonuses depended a lot on their sending of American jobs to Kapil's stewardship.
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.
Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?
---
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).
But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.
You can't handle the truth.
I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude. In democratic countries politicians use it to please people who chose them, so the problem is in the mindset of the majority. For politicians it is always easier to play with those things that don't require a lot of effort.
.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.
This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences.
What do you expect? They're government educated by a system that is more concerned about not hurting anyone's feelings than it is with things like dialectic, critical thinking, and instilling intellectual independence. Most are far too passive (something promoted in the media by repeated example) to recognize this as a problem on their own and educate themselves despite the Information Age. This page sums it up nicely. The "lesson of dependency" is the hinge on which all the others rest.
I'll highlight the most glaring stupidity of this proposal, the unspoken and unacknowledged aspect it deliberately ignores.
There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.
... that you almost definitely won't see unless you are looking for it. It reminds me of people who call up a talk show to tell the host how much they hate him, his views, and his show ... yet they're quite familiar with all of it. You'd think a person would go with one of the multitude of other choices and listen to something other than whatever he finds offensive, but that would mean having nothing to bitch about. Nothing to bitch about would mean being denied their five minutes of climbing up on their high horse and feeling superior to someone else while they pontificate against them. This is very important to nothing human beings with no real sense of purpose in their lives and would be a great loss to them.
There are things I don't like so I don't watch them, listen to them, read them, etc, but it never occurs to me to feel offended. I don't get any pleasure or satisfaction from trying to force my will on others because I'm not an insecure fevered ego. If I were, I'd feel a sacred duty to work on fixing it while never making it someone else's problem. So, the fact that I don't enjoy something doesn't make me feel like no one else should (assuming it's just a matter of taste -- i.e. I don't feel that way about armed robbery -- since some of you are childish and jump all over every little thing not spelled out for you).
"I'm offended!" is a covert and thus cowardly way of saying "therefore, you should yield to me and change it to accommodate my tastes". It's an emotional appeal unconsciously designed to conceal a desire to control. The people who want to control others using this method are far too timid to try gaining any kind of domination or power to get what they want, so they go for the pity appeal instead. They try to gain the sympathy of someone who already has power or authority and by proxy obtain the control they desire. If they are thwarted, they accuse the authority of being insensitive and try to ridicule or shame (i.e. manipulate) them into doing their will.
The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like. These are the same disruptive types who aren't going to respect censorship laws. They would view them as a challenge. If anything, using Tor or some other international, jurisdiction-crossing proxy to evade censorship would only add to their thrill.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
So how exactly do you propose to stop criminals without imposing on their civil liberties? How the heck do you propose that the constitution is even to be used if you are not going to interpret it? It's just inkblots on paper if you don't read it and convert it from ink to thoughts and concepts.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
...
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances
...which means you have a constitution that states things so precisely that it's impossible to draw more than one conclusion about what anything it says means. Do you have an example of such a constitution? (Hint: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.)
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
No, there is already a mechanism for it. If it's broke, amend it.
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
No, debt has to be paid eventually otherwise it's theft, not borrowing.
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
Obviously yes; by definition money is a government construct, it exists by law otherwise business would mint their own cash or we'd barter. [Fiat currency is fiat because you can use it to pay tax, that's what makes it special compared to an "IOU"]
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
This is a gray question, it depends on the person. Either system is sustainable though guaranteed safety nets tend to make places more pleasant in the highly probable event something goes wrong.
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
Yes, automatically follows 3.
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
No, reducing liberty and privacy to prevent crime is also known as pre-crime. i.e. trying to arrest people because they might have been thinking about doing something illegal. Police and the court system exist to mediate disputes when they occur, not outright prevent everything before it happens. (liberty or absolute safety, pick one).
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
Yes, businesses are government constructs that exist by law, they rely on other laws like contract law (employment, supply deals, etc) as well so are, by definition, government regulated (only legal contracts are enforceable, guess who decides what is legal). Businesses which exist outside this system are called Organized Crime Syndicates (eg. Mafia) which have their own private police (enforcers) who carry out sentences (kill you) for breaking company by-laws. It's interesting that the government-free business construct (OCS) ends up looking like a government and business rolled into one (fascist state).
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
I suppose, if you were prone to short term thinking about what is good for you personally right now without regard for anyone else or the long-term consequences, then "no" for everything makes sense. Other people who know anything about history, law, economics and logic might not feel the same way.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
Yes. The societal context in which the Constitution is viewed changes, as do the very meanings of words (such an "insure" in the preamble to the Constitution, which now relates almost exclusively to financial matters). As an example, consider the curtailing of "free speech" to exclude speech which causes "imminent lawless action". Falsely warning about a bomb in a crowded building is extremely likely to cause assault, theft, and vandalism as people try to escape. Merely advocating illegal behavior at an indeterminate time in the future is not imminent, and is thus not prohibited. There are, of course, other laws that can affect how speech may be presented. You can not abuse or harass others with your ideas, for example. In my opinion, nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations that are not yet fully funded, nor expected to be. If the government has said it will pay several million dollars for a new fighter jet over the next 20 years, that full several-million dollar figure is counted as debt, even though only a small part of it is actually due now. Planning for future expenses is a reasonable thing to do, no? Another large portion of debt is a financial device to free up quantities of money for other uses. More on that shortly.
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes". A strong economy is one where money moves freely and quickly, and everyone gets what they want. In other words, "to each according to his need". When the government adds money to the economy through the Federal Reserve Bank, it also adds an equal amount of debt. Increasing the monetary supply allows the public to have more money to spend immediately, with the knowledge that said money will disappear again shortly. It enables a strong economy to be built (or rebuilt), and when the economy is running again, the money supply can be reduced gradually to improve efficiency and reduce the effects of inflation.
There is a riddle about a man dying, leaving his 19 horses to be divided among his three sons, with the eldest receiving half, the middle receiving one fourth, and the youngest receiving one fifth. After trying for several days to figure out how to divide a horse, the local wise man came and brought his own horse, adding it to the pool. The eldest received 10, the middle received 5, and the youngest received 4. The wise man then took his horse and left.
The economy works similarly. With the temporary addition of money, transactions can be processed faster and easier, and operations can go more smoothly. The rapid response of the Federal Reserve Bank reduces the effect of recessions, and speeds recovery.
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
Deposit insurance reduces the effect of bank runs. Before 1933, when a bank was in danger of closing, customers would rush to get their money out, before it became lost in the disappearing bank. Since banks can't keep all of their holdings on hand at once, some people would inevitably lose their savings. Now, there is no need to make that rush to withdraw, because even if banks are closed, the money is protected. Less damage from bank runs means the banks keep more money available, are are less likely to
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That's the thing though. I'm reading it literally. If taken at face value, your statement would, in fact, make a country completely inoperable.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
I would rather make a clear "it depends". As with many things there is no clear Yes / No. The big problem how much is the right thing amount the government should influence whatever.
1. Yes, the Constitution should be interpreted. You need to adapt the interpretation to the technological realities and resulting implications. You think GPS tracking is unconstitutional? Go look it up, there is no provision on this. Should the Constitution be perverted beyond the original intent, definitely No.
2. I am all for a balanced budget and any government should strive for that. But there are unforeseen consequences, such as natural disasters. Should the people be left alone during this state of emergency, because there is no budget? No, they should not.
3. & 7. Is government allowed to interfere with the free market? Generally no, but the government is there to ensure that everybody plays by the same rules and that there remains a free market. Yes this includes laws that prevent monopolies form and price rigging.
4. I don't know about you, but will rather live in a country that helps me cases of dire need that starting and freezing in the cold, just because I lost a job. Sure there is abuse and that need handled.
5. What are the alternatives to an income tax? Ok, you get a road tax for driving on the government built road, you get a police, fire department and paramedic tax... It's not perfect but the approach to tax income has at least the potential to be "fair"; people with high income pay more... but the current situation is a broken one, yes...
6. If due process is done, then it is ok. If there is reasonable grounds to suspect some illegal activity and a judge approves all and every measure on an individual basis it is better for the entire society. The danger comes from abuse of power and that must be prevented.
So, no you can't answer yes to every question. Because if you do you actually don't have a government left and that is not called democracy, that's called anarchism.
nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.
Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.
You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations
- wrong. Any debt that government gets into is a tax future tax, because government has no money, it must raise taxes to pay back the debts.
So if the government must do something and it has no money, it must raise taxes immediately to cover that expense, and if the taxes cannot be raised for political reason (people don't accept it), then the government must not do it.
Of-course you can talk about war-bonds, those were all domestically bought, but those are equivalent to taxes, so government shouldn't be allowed to get into debt, it must be required to raise taxes.
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
- wrong. It's never 'necessary', nor is it authorized.
Government must never issue bills of credit, it's illegal for government to do so. Real money is expression of production, any money that is printed without production behind them is counterfeit money and counterfeiters must be hung by the neck till dead.
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes"
- that's the 'modern theory' that gives the green light and justification for governments to steal and counterfeit, this is all nonsense. There is no economics but Austrian economics that is sound and will not destroy the economy in the long run.
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
- wrong. Tranquility and general welfare have nothing to do with personal welfare and money redistribution (stealing from Peter to give to Paul). Government must not be allowed into insurance, all it does is it creates moral hazards and if it was running a real insurance program, it would the most worthless insurance program. Governments of-course never run insurance programs, only transfer and pyramid schemes.
Of-course SS and health care, just like education loans and and housing loans, etc., it's all pyramid schemes, it's all illegal and immoral. I wrote plenty on it in my journal (some examples).
Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple
- wrong. US Constitution authorizes taxes, but it took a while to start collecting income taxes instead of import/sales taxes (excise), as they had to create a clever scheme to call excise taxes 'income'. In any case it's definitely not a simple tax, it's the most convoluted tax from every perspective.
You don't need to hire an accountant and lawyers to pay your sales taxes for example, but you do in many cases when you pay income taxes. Income taxes violate your privacy, your liberties and rights against testifying against yourself and illegal searches and seizures and in any case those are the worst taxes to collect from point of view of economy, as they deprive economy from savings and investment, which is the only thing that grows the economy.
There is no such long term concept as 'consumption economy', there
You can't handle the truth.