| > As someone who hasn't used social media in 5+ years, what do these social networks need to do to make you quit using them? HN is social media (we’re here posting things and socializing, right?), so I’m assuming you’re referring to Twitter and Facebook type sites instead of social media in general. I admit that I’ve used sci-hub a lot, and I strongly agree that publicly funded research shouldn’t be hidden behind paywalls. However, ethical debates aside, I also have to admit that sci-hub’s activities are violating copyright law, whether we like it or not. I’m not going to pretend to be surprised when public companies choose to suspend accounts which violate their policies. If anything, it’s helpful to have consistent guidelines for what is and isn’t against their policies. Obviously they can’t have perfect enforcement of every Tweet and every account, but I can’t really blame a company for consistently enforcing policies which are consistent with the law. As for social media: I’m a light Twitter user, but I don’t go to the site for Twitter itself. I go for the connections I’ve made on the site. Most of the people I know who are boycotting Twitter for whatever reason aren’t people who actually liked using the site in the first place, so their boycott isn’t really much of a statement. Likewise, I don’t use Twitter or Instagram or HN or any other website as my exclusive source of interaction, so one site’s enforcement of their honestly quite consistent policy isn’t some sort of dire threat to my freedoms. By now, we’re all well aware that no website is perfect and no social media platform can keep everyone happy at scale. If I rage quit every site that did anything anywhere that I didn’t fully like, I wouldn’t have many social platforms left (HN included) Refusing to use any platform unless they act in perfect lockstep with our own desires is not a realistic expectation at scale. |
The issue with having as you mention guidelines in line with the law, is that it prevents people discussing it. Which is an absolute necessity for lively democracies.
You're going to tell me that you can discuss the law without breaking it. But that's a very debatable point. Generally the law moves because of pressions from interest groups that would be beneficiary from a change. So banning them would in effect ban the most vocal proponents of changes and those that really understand the fine details and issues and that can meaningfully make the debate progress.