To discuss this question, we had invited Mr. Gupta to our webinar series last week. It was a really fruitful discussion and we recieved new perspectives to approach this issue. The webinar was also hosted live at the YouTube, and can be accessed from this link: https://youtu.be/wb0lqkf2B2s.
To continue this webinar series, we have invited Mr. Dimitrois Kafteranis, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg. He will be discussing the legal nuances related to AI as whistleblowers on December 19 at 6 PM IST. You can register for the same with this link: https://tinyurl.com/lawtech5. The week after, we have another interesting webinar with Mr. Darrell Mottley (Attorney at Banner Witcoff) to speak on the topic of Fashion Tech & Law. We will be notifying the details of the same in due time.
We would love to hear your views on our webinar. Further, in case you want us to organize a webinar on any particular topic, please feel free to reach out to us at [email protected]. We are really dedicated to building scholarship in this beautiful interface of law & tech and would do our very best to make your idea a success.
Best,
The Law and Technology Society,
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.
The option I expect most people to chose here is not even listed: None of the above! They are all apps that do injustice to the users. As future lawyers, I would encourage you to consider how these tools are an injustice by themselves(not that I support bans).
Wouldn’t it be great if we could move away from algorithmically censored platforms like these, I may sound preachy here but many times over it has been proven that these platfroms themselves cause the breach of digital freedoms we promote on them. (Not blaming you here, Youtube has become synonymous to online video)
Definately the bans aren’t something to praise and this is a great question to be had.
The url shortening service loads ads and trackers(Literally even goo.gl would be better) on redirect, I suggest using something like anoni.sh
We must always ask: Are we here to defend digital justice or protect big companies from legal regulation?
Would to love to explore around your question, " *Are we here to defend digital justice or protect big companies from legal regulation?". In what way does scrutiny of these companies get removed by questioning the legality of a ban which is done without following norms of legality? Does that not create a problem in which the premise of informational privacy and digital security rather is addressed facially.
I am also curious since I did not see this naturally arise from the topic of this conversation. Or, the comments in the conversation that focussed more on cases of website blocking and a lack of transparency and notice that has caused web censorship without the ability for judicial remedy for creators.
Somethings in the tech world may need to be regulated, if some things need to be regulated to protect consumers it isn’t something that would always be bad, though a selective application of such rules is certainly bad, and bans seem to be too extreme a measure
Though what I said wasn’t in a great tone, What I did do is issue a warning: If we keep on evading some digital rights to protect others, what we may end up is just some business with free speech while people are silently silenced
I understand that such platforms do need to be used to spread the word somethings were clearly avoidable:-
Zoom for video calling
Tinyurl has alternatives(I listed one)
Youtube can be an option, it need not be the only one.
The work that the IFF is doing is phenomenal, I just highlighted some issues in the above case: I hope it would interpreted as positive criticism.
Edited to add:
This means we must always draw a line between free speech of people and companies. I said about asking us ourselves and didn’t pose this question. Ofcourse, we are here to protect user’s rights at IFF, and I know it is dedicated towards the goal.
Certainly, we all benefit from positive criticism and I hope you intepret my response as good faith engagement. In the spirit of honesty, I engaged here after having noticed a recurring theme on criticism of the use of platforms which are necessary for engaging with a larger number of people. One of our organisational priorities is to conduct public advocacy and it becomes rather tough if we do not use platforms such as YouTube. Also, a lot of times we are not the organisers and it is out of our control.
Finally a request, engaging on platforms often results in sidestepping away from the substance of the debate as has happened right now. The substance of the conversation in the webinar was focussed on the blocking of websites that is done without transparency that impacts judicial remedies. Let us also try to engage on topic and we are ofcourse happy to improve our practices looking inward as much we prescribe towards others.