¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have no problem whatsoever with removing offending content from Snipt. I regularly remove and ban users who post illegal or otherwise inappropriate content on the site.

If they contact me, I'll happily remove anything even remotely "pro terrorist group ISIS", but as mentioned, I've received no such requests (and I don't proactively review private snippets for offensive content unless it's reported to me).

I'm sure everything is happening very fast right now, but I hope you arrive at a policy more carefully drawn than this.

All terrorists suck, and they haven't any right to use services like yours to coordinate hurting other people. Nor does anyone have the right to incite violence. But people do have a right to political opinions, and some such might be interpreted as "remotely pro terrorist", without actually being coordination or incitement.

Finding the right lines for these determinations is hard, and I don't envy anyone the task of drawing them. And again, things may be moving fast now, and I understand that if there are real concerns about safety that a broad brush might be the first starting point for you. Even so, I hope that whatever policy you adopt iterates over the fullness of time to something that respects people's rights to express their opinions.

> All terrorists suck

Being the descendant in a family that was host of several terrorists, I have to disagree with you. See once the war was over and nazi germany got booted out, all those terrorists in my family instantly turned into resistance heroes.

Turns out those terrorists in my family were just ordinary people who got into this for reason as simple as having a bike allowing them to move around and relay messages, sort of an internet over bike and some of them got caught and executed for that.

I doubt anyone resisting Nazi invasion killed any innocent people. What would be the point? The only innocents in their country would be their own countrymen, little point in killing them. Collaborators? Not innocent.

Terrorists _target_ innocent people to gain advantage through intimidation. That's wrong, everywhere and always.

The parent used the word "Terrorist", but in that context, I think of it as a "Resistance Fighter". It would have been the people in charge, in this case the Nazis, who would have used the label "Terrorist".

>Collaborators? Not innocent.

Not muslim/chiite/sunnite ? Not innocent.

Terrorist can be a loaded word in a political context. We have terms like "freedom fighter", " revolutionary", and "rebel", but these don't quite have neural connotations either.

"Insurgent" is used by the media quite frequently, but pundits have twisted this word into little more than an alias for "terrorist". My brain subconsciously makes this mapping despite my knowledge of a contrary meaning; I think maybe language is too pliable in politics.

Maybe we need yet new language to escape the difficulty of communicating without biases inherent in the vocabulary (our minds already do enough to short-circuit logic already without the English language making the matter worse). "Terrorism" and "unrest" are at such a forefront in the global consciousness that the whole subject is deserving of the few extra mental bytes that would be needed to disambiguate the mess.

If I were in charge of such a task, I would try to borrow words associated with certain well-known historical anecdotes in a hope that the pundits wouldn't simply redefine the words from under us. Hopefully such vocabulary would have enough of a semantic anchor in our generation to dispel such attempts, conscious or not.

To press on the issue further, it seems like it would be wise to engineer our language in a way that leads to better thinking. I suppose that would be too artificial to ever be accepted though.

I appreciate your comments. Snipt is a very low-traffic site so I doubt my decisions along these lines will ever have much impact on very many people in general, but I am filing for DMCA agent status and will adopt an official Terms of Use and all that jazz.

As a tiny (open-source) side project, this stuff is no fun, but I realize it's now a requirement if I want to continue leaving the site up.

Do you have a terms of service and/or privacy policy? I can't locate it.

We don't have one, no. Going to get one up tonight.

Speaking of safe harbour, have you registered yourself with the copyright office with a designated contact person to receive DMCA takedown requests? You don't seem to have a prominent link to that info on your mobile page.

I suspect that THAT will cause you issues.

I don't think the terrorists will care /jk

:P

That may not be in your best interest, lefally. Pro-active moderation makes it very hard to argue safe harbor status.

Not true. If you're alerted to offending material and you remove it, you haven't broken safe harbor status what-so-ever. Otherwise YouTube, DropBox, Instagram and countless other sites would be dead.

The only way you break safe harbor is if you know of offending material, eg by a filter or having been alerted to it, and leave that material in place. If you run content filters (such as at the point of upload), then you have to be more careful.

The difference being between after-the-fact moderation and pre-screening. If you pre-screen you take on a greater burden of risk, in terms of copyright holders being able to argue you knew about something and didn't remove it, or should have known.

Being alerted to offending material is not proactive screening.

It's not pro-active, it is reactive. He explicitly states he's not doing pro-active removals.

His contact info for copyright requests is not prominent on his website, at least not that I can see.

It absolutely does not.

The safe harbors provided by S512 and S230 are absolute and are not impeded by proactive (or reactive) administration. This is part of their reason for their existence.

With regards to DMCA, 512(m) seems applicable.

Applicable how?

"(m) Protection of Privacy.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on—

(1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or

(2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law."

Dude, you desperately need a designated agent. You just aren't under safe harbor at the moment.

How so?

Actually that tweet was not from government official. It was from ruling political party IT cell here. Government officials from DOT and IT ministry are still silent on this issue.

what is a "political party IT cell" is this some committee of MP's? or some Indian political slang?

The terms are a bit messed up, but the closest thing these are to a US organization is a presidential campaign policy working group. [1] These are the guys who basically act as advisors to the government's top politicians on issues that relate to technology.

Edit: They don't only manage the online presence of the political party. They are more detailed, coming up with policies and papers (presumably - none of these ever show up in public, oddly) [2]

[1] As an example, here's Obama's - http://change.gov/learn/policy_working_groups

[2] The head of the IT cell's LI profile - https://www.linkedin.com/in/argupta26

Ah like SPAD's (Special Advisors) are they considered temporary civil servants it seems odd that an unelected "advisor" is making policy and being quoted in the media though.

The ruling party, BJP, has a group of IT professionals managing their online presence. This, they call their "IT cell".

cell == division