Tell HN: Twitter suspends arrested Iranian tech blogger’s account(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Tell HN: Twitter suspends arrested Iranian tech blogger’s account
https://twitter.com/jadi/
117 comments
My understanding is that when someone is arrested in Iran, other activists try to shut down that person's social media accounts in order to prevent Iranian authorities going through his/her profiles and gather more incriminating evidence against them. Isn't that what is happening here?
So actually trying to “help” by getting Twitter to reverse the suspension, may actually be the worst thing you can do to him and his fellow activists.
Yet another example of how good intentions aren’t enough. You need to fully understand the situation before you act, especially when dealing with a situation that is different from what you are familiar with.
Yet another example of how good intentions aren’t enough. You need to fully understand the situation before you act, especially when dealing with a situation that is different from what you are familiar with.
Good comment that should be on the top. Like another comment said, the suspension might even be to protect him.
The thing is we don‘t know either way.
The thing is we don‘t know either way.
Yes, I stand corrected. I can't edit my top-level comment, otherwise I would have added an explanation.
Yes, this most like is what happened, linked to a news source here to independently support this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33106622
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33106622
This stinks of false-flag psyops.
A guy is quietly abducted by an authoritarian regime.
Naturally, the smart response would be for "activists" to "help" him by erasing all public record of his existence.
A guy is quietly abducted by an authoritarian regime.
Naturally, the smart response would be for "activists" to "help" him by erasing all public record of his existence.
Please feel free to provide evidence of how deleting the accounts has made anyone less safe.
Folks use Twitter for tweets and for DMs. I have no knowledge here but this could be an attempt to remove all private messages.
I did not know this. It is fine, then. Also another comment mentions blocking access to DMs, which makes sense.
I was unable to edit my top-level comment, otherwise I would have added an explanation. Thanks.
I was unable to edit my top-level comment, otherwise I would have added an explanation. Thanks.
[deleted]
Just paving the road with some good intentions.
It may be a good idea to flag this entire submission until some other action can be taken. It's not great to have all of this discussion about social profile circumvention in the open IMO.
I'm doing my part!
I don't think, if you want arrest somebody, you would crawl everything as a part of acquiring evidence before it.
In some countries, you arrest people first, then find/manufacture evidence later.
The arrests are not premeditated. They arrest you first, then ask questions
How do they even know who to arrest if they supposedly collect evidence after the fact?
If you are an authoritarian state you don't give too much worry about that, if you grab the wrong person "oh well another day another murder."
It's about terror and control, not about justice. If you think that's bad wait till you see what the Khmer Rogue did in Cambodia. The precious framework of individual rights, a relatively functioning justice system, and constitutional guarantees may not be perfect here in the US of A, there are issues, and those rights are still being eroded, and we have work to do, but people who draw comparisons between places like the US and China or Iran clearly have no idea what they are talking about, and it's a decent chance they may in fact be part of state sponsored psychological warfare apparatuses.
It's about terror and control, not about justice. If you think that's bad wait till you see what the Khmer Rogue did in Cambodia. The precious framework of individual rights, a relatively functioning justice system, and constitutional guarantees may not be perfect here in the US of A, there are issues, and those rights are still being eroded, and we have work to do, but people who draw comparisons between places like the US and China or Iran clearly have no idea what they are talking about, and it's a decent chance they may in fact be part of state sponsored psychological warfare apparatuses.
There is no due process in authoritarian states. Being suspected by someone on the police that you might hold subversive views is enough to get you arrested, tortured, and murdered.
Right, but as soon as they suspect someone they probably run tools like these. They can be ran faster than it takes to find someone and throw then in a van for sure.
This is probably a very US-centric (or insert-your-country-here-centric) viewpoint that does not hold true everywhere else in the world. Even if it does, it would be idealistic to assume these things continue to hold true during moments of crisis for a state..
It's not idealistic, it's basic spycraft. Grab what you can before people know they need to hide it.
I believe suspending their account also blocks access to private messages.
It would also prevent their account being used to access any private accounts they may follow.
It would also prevent their account being used to access any private accounts they may follow.
we (activists) actually ask social media platforms to suspend the account and publicize it. to avoid the activist being tortured to extract passwords. twitter is doing the right thing
Do you have intimate knowledge of Iranian policing playbooks or intinate knowledge of Iranian activists playbooks or are you guessing?
I'm not sure why your being downvoted (or whatever it's called on here). It's a legitimate question. It looks like one person in here claims to have some amount of knowledge on the matter, but it would be good to get some kind of confirmation in either direction before endorsing one tactic, or another.
That sounds stupid. Iran is an official government agency, they can just ask twitter or some ally like UAE or China to hand over all the information in a form a lot easier for searching through than logging into their account.
What evidence do you have that Twitter will comply with a request like that from Iran? Even when redirected via a government that doesn't have anything to do with the account?
They have to follow the laws of the countries they operate in. Keep in mind that business operations and server locations (and incorporation locations) are not the same thing.
If you serve customers in another country, their laws apply. You can either follow the law or not serve in that country. This is pretty much how it has worked forever.
This is obviously not great if you have a set of less-restrictive and more-restrictive laws that contradict each other. And it's not great if values, politics and rights in general aren't compatible. As much as we can disagree with what mass-murdering authoritarian regimes are up to, unless we go to war (after we have already applied all the sanctions we can think of) there isn't much you can do about it.
If you serve customers in another country, their laws apply. You can either follow the law or not serve in that country. This is pretty much how it has worked forever.
This is obviously not great if you have a set of less-restrictive and more-restrictive laws that contradict each other. And it's not great if values, politics and rights in general aren't compatible. As much as we can disagree with what mass-murdering authoritarian regimes are up to, unless we go to war (after we have already applied all the sanctions we can think of) there isn't much you can do about it.
The paradigm you're describing is only a convenient fiction for countries that have made treaties with each other to create such environment. It's prevalence has more to do with the fact there's really only three and a half major sovereign bases of power in the world (soon to be two and a half), than the actual physical reality. The actual physical reality is that communication over borders doesn't violate the Schelling point of borders (ie it's not an act of war), hence Radio Free Europe etc.
Unless you can point to a treaty between the US and Iran that lets Iran sue US companies, or some other way that Iran can actually enforce a judgement on Twitter, then no, Twitter has no need to respect Iran's laws. About the only way I see is for Iran to firewall Twitter wholesale, but isn't the wholesale end-user Internet shutdown basically doing that?
Unless you can point to a treaty between the US and Iran that lets Iran sue US companies, or some other way that Iran can actually enforce a judgement on Twitter, then no, Twitter has no need to respect Iran's laws. About the only way I see is for Iran to firewall Twitter wholesale, but isn't the wholesale end-user Internet shutdown basically doing that?
You don't need a lawsuit if you're Iran, you just use your APTs to perform cyberattacks on US-hospitals and send your Iranan secret agents to work at Twitter and do your bidding from the inside out. Both have happened and are happening.
This isn't really a "but it's the law!"-case, it's a country A wants something, and they might use whatever they have to get it. The US has sanctions, but Iran doesn't except maybe oil production, but there are other places where you can get oil. So if Iran has nothing they can deny anyone else, they resort to attacks.
So when Iran says "do this because it is our law", you might not do it because you are interested in their laws nor do you have to follow them (legally), but you might not want the expense of being targeted by them.
This isn't really a "but it's the law!"-case, it's a country A wants something, and they might use whatever they have to get it. The US has sanctions, but Iran doesn't except maybe oil production, but there are other places where you can get oil. So if Iran has nothing they can deny anyone else, they resort to attacks.
So when Iran says "do this because it is our law", you might not do it because you are interested in their laws nor do you have to follow them (legally), but you might not want the expense of being targeted by them.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what you said above? "If you serve customers in another country, their laws apply. You can either follow the law or not serve in that country." That would seem to imply some overarching legal enforcement regime, rather than law of the jungle.
As to the law of the jungle, if embedded Iranian agents have enough power to do anything to Twitter, then the right framing is that Twitter has a massive security problem. Also it would be foolish of Iran to burn such resources on damaging Twitter rather than continuing to silently exfiltrate data that interests them.
If Iran performs arbitrary attacks on hospitals in "retaliation" for Twitter's actions, then that still doesn't affect Twitter. And similarly, that's best framed as said hospitals having abysmal security, rather than focusing blame on Iran. The Internet is hostile noise.
As to the law of the jungle, if embedded Iranian agents have enough power to do anything to Twitter, then the right framing is that Twitter has a massive security problem. Also it would be foolish of Iran to burn such resources on damaging Twitter rather than continuing to silently exfiltrate data that interests them.
If Iran performs arbitrary attacks on hospitals in "retaliation" for Twitter's actions, then that still doesn't affect Twitter. And similarly, that's best framed as said hospitals having abysmal security, rather than focusing blame on Iran. The Internet is hostile noise.
> That would seem to imply some overarching legal enforcement regime, rather than law of the jungle.
No, it implies that if you respect the laws of the countries the people you serve reside in, you can choose to follow the law by not serving them, and therefore not having to "do what they say", or serve them, but then by their laws "do what they say".
Regarding effects on Twitter: it costs them money. Their share prices drop and jo-jo a ton when stuff like this gets out. Legally, not much effects twitter, it's not a person after all, and legal departments weasel their way around plenty to make sure a company keeps existing and keeps making money. If it's cheaper to censor some random person on your private platform then compared against shoring up your cyber defences, that's an easy choice for the people in charge with somewhat cartoonish dollar signs in their eyes.
The reality is that nothing is truly isolated from side-effects and circumstances in the world. Even if there are no diplomatic ties, and no physical violence, it's all happening on the same globe with the same internet. So ignoring laws is not always the cheapest way to deal with countries, and not dealing with countries is generally not an option when you're connected online.
No, it implies that if you respect the laws of the countries the people you serve reside in, you can choose to follow the law by not serving them, and therefore not having to "do what they say", or serve them, but then by their laws "do what they say".
Regarding effects on Twitter: it costs them money. Their share prices drop and jo-jo a ton when stuff like this gets out. Legally, not much effects twitter, it's not a person after all, and legal departments weasel their way around plenty to make sure a company keeps existing and keeps making money. If it's cheaper to censor some random person on your private platform then compared against shoring up your cyber defences, that's an easy choice for the people in charge with somewhat cartoonish dollar signs in their eyes.
The reality is that nothing is truly isolated from side-effects and circumstances in the world. Even if there are no diplomatic ties, and no physical violence, it's all happening on the same globe with the same internet. So ignoring laws is not always the cheapest way to deal with countries, and not dealing with countries is generally not an option when you're connected online.
> it implies that if you respect the laws of the countries the people you serve reside in, you can choose to follow the law by not serving them, and therefore not having to "do what they say", or serve them, but then by their laws "do what they say".
This is only a real dichotomy if there is a legal enforcement regime forcing one to choose.
You're substituting a few handwavey indirections to profit-based incentives. While partially true, this mainly functions to absolve Twitter from not taking a more principled stand - the same argument could be made if they started doing more deplorable things with user data.
So sure, the stock market is fickle and irrational, like every herd. But the fundamental analysis for Iran being able to attack Twitter is that Twitter has poor security, period. I'd rather focus on the real problem than merely shoot today's messenger.
This is only a real dichotomy if there is a legal enforcement regime forcing one to choose.
You're substituting a few handwavey indirections to profit-based incentives. While partially true, this mainly functions to absolve Twitter from not taking a more principled stand - the same argument could be made if they started doing more deplorable things with user data.
So sure, the stock market is fickle and irrational, like every herd. But the fundamental analysis for Iran being able to attack Twitter is that Twitter has poor security, period. I'd rather focus on the real problem than merely shoot today's messenger.
So practically speaking, what will happen if Twitter ignores Iranian law and allows IPs from that country to use their platform anyway? I don't think the US govt will enforce Iranian law for them...
The consequence within Iran is Twitter will be sanctioned if they ever attempt to create and operate a legal entity there. So who cares, right?
More like the IRG doing cybers on you. Iran doesn't have much leverage besides that.
As for who might care: twitter might. They may have to spend more money on defence, on screening people when hiring them, and on legal to make sure they aren't getting sued in the US for discrimination, data leaks or whatever else people might come up with if they keep (accidentally) hiring foreign intelligence officers without checking who they are.
As for who might care: twitter might. They may have to spend more money on defence, on screening people when hiring them, and on legal to make sure they aren't getting sued in the US for discrimination, data leaks or whatever else people might come up with if they keep (accidentally) hiring foreign intelligence officers without checking who they are.
Attacks on their digital infrastructure, either remotely or by getting their agents hired.
> They have to follow the laws of the countries they operate in. Keep in mind that business operations and server locations (and incorporation locations) are not the same thing.
> If you serve customers in another country, their laws apply. You can either follow the law or not serve in that country. This is pretty much how it has worked forever.
You are right.
Now, Twitter is free to not follow this law and expect consequences: a law suit from Iran, or retaliation towards Twitter operations on Iranian ground.
You are right.
Now, Twitter is free to not follow this law and expect consequences: a law suit from Iran, or retaliation towards Twitter operations on Iranian ground.
Or cyberattacks and getting their agents hired by twitter.
So are you claiming that Twitter has an office in Iran? It's been some years since I worked for Twitter, but as far as I know they do not operate in Iran except to the extent which their services are available to anybody with an IP.
Twitter hired KSA spies that helped kill Jamal Khashoggi. Twitter "compliance" is irrelevant because they have no internal data security.
This makes no sense. When governments go after their targets, they gather all they can as soon as they define them as targets.
Twitter, on the other hand, is known to be a massive censor, just like Youtube/Google.
Twitter, on the other hand, is known to be a massive censor, just like Youtube/Google.
The Iran situation is in a lot of flux, so while that may be possible when being methodical about one person, it is less so if you are trying to rapidly detain hundreds or thousands per day.
They probably have a script that creates an archive of all social media posts. Not hard to do. As soon as you have a name to point it to you can run this sort of tool.
Activists are apparently unfamiliar with how the internet works: [web archive link redacted]
Hopefully the authorities in Iran are similarly ignorant
Hopefully the authorities in Iran are similarly ignorant
I've redacted the link from the parent comment because we got emails suggesting that it might put someone at risk. We can eventually add it back later if that would be helpful—but I think the comment makes the point either way.
I think the authorities are stupider than what you think.
When they arrest someone in a demonstration, they will confiscate their phone and open the apps on the device. If the account is inactive, they can not see anything.
May I ask you to delete your comment if that is not a problem? You basically gave the regime an evidence we said the activists are trying to hide away.
When they arrest someone in a demonstration, they will confiscate their phone and open the apps on the device. If the account is inactive, they can not see anything.
May I ask you to delete your comment if that is not a problem? You basically gave the regime an evidence we said the activists are trying to hide away.
If I was kidnapped, beaten and probably in a mass grave don't you dare take down what I said that put me in that position. (Frankly we may be in that spot sooner than you think in the US) That's exactly what the regime wants, to shut him up. He gave his freedom at a minimum, probably his life to say what he said, the least we can do is listen to him.
The suspension is temporary. Presumably when the person is released, Twitter will reinstate the account. The other reason for suspension is to not compromise DMs and followers. But I also understand your point of view in not wanting to delete it.
So in this hypothetical scenario they don't know about the Internet Archive but they do happen to browse Hacker News? This probably isn't their first rodeo. I'm sure they're aware of the archives that exist.
No that hypothetical scenario can't be right. I understand the reasoning behind why not wanting to delete the comment.
You would think the regime already did this before the arrest
Telling that the personal website is the most resistant. Interesting idea that social media accounts could be taken down by good actors as a form of damage control.
Probably for the best until at least when/if he's released.
Activists accounts are taken down to try to protect them.
Example news source supporting this is likely what happened:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-diaspora-tech-worker...
Example news source supporting this is likely what happened:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-diaspora-tech-worker...
In that case it should have made clear by Twitter, etc.
"This account has been suspended to protect the user" (or something like that)
"This account has been suspended to protect the user" (or something like that)
Or it could give plausible deniability. Maybe Twitter is trying to help the activists without explicitly saying so to keep Twitter accessible in Iran.
I think Twitter is blocked in Iran. It has to be, as almost anything else is.
I am not sure about the need for deniability. Iranian gov hates them anyway and nobody will let around a table to discuss the topic.
Au least it is good to know that this may (and probably is) the reason.
Au least it is good to know that this may (and probably is) the reason.
This is not about you, please stop; no reason to believe that either your own well being or life is on the line, nor for that matter, that of your friends and family.
Concept of plausible deniability is vital in situations like this for all parties involved. Unless you are able to prove via evidence it is not, please refrain from (repeatedly) commenting on a topic, that at least to me, you appear to be unfamiliar with and has the very real potential to result in physical harm to others.
If I have errored in my reasoning, please feel free to explicitly state why. Thanks.
Concept of plausible deniability is vital in situations like this for all parties involved. Unless you are able to prove via evidence it is not, please refrain from (repeatedly) commenting on a topic, that at least to me, you appear to be unfamiliar with and has the very real potential to result in physical harm to others.
If I have errored in my reasoning, please feel free to explicitly state why. Thanks.
Oh come on!
If you are talking about plausible deniability for the person (I was talking about Twitter) - there is strictly zero value of it for him. He is in prison and everything should be done to free him up.
Other people that worked with him? It is not like the public Twitter messages cannot be filed as they come (other do it for you too). You mean that he may have received DMs? Ah, and the zealots in Iran will just say "ah yes, right, this must be the devil US".
So before getting all warmed up - state what you have to state. This is not like there is a big secret about people using Twitter/Telegram/Signal to protect their lives and only you, me and 3 other people are aware.
You are probably much more experienced in plausible deniability than me. I have just set this up for companies, on actual systems with actual encryption.
It is not that you have an error in your reasoning - it is that I do not see that reasoning at all.
If you are talking about plausible deniability for the person (I was talking about Twitter) - there is strictly zero value of it for him. He is in prison and everything should be done to free him up.
Other people that worked with him? It is not like the public Twitter messages cannot be filed as they come (other do it for you too). You mean that he may have received DMs? Ah, and the zealots in Iran will just say "ah yes, right, this must be the devil US".
So before getting all warmed up - state what you have to state. This is not like there is a big secret about people using Twitter/Telegram/Signal to protect their lives and only you, me and 3 other people are aware.
You are probably much more experienced in plausible deniability than me. I have just set this up for companies, on actual systems with actual encryption.
It is not that you have an error in your reasoning - it is that I do not see that reasoning at all.
Twitter’s encryption offers no plausible deniability. Even Twitter having the data offline might potentially be a threat in the worse case scenario, given countries have used insiders to again access to information:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-twit...
Again, if you have evidence deleting the accounts of detained activists has made them less safe, please provide it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-twit...
Again, if you have evidence deleting the accounts of detained activists has made them less safe, please provide it.
What is your meaning of "plausible deniability"? In cryptography, this is the fact that data cannot be confirmed to be encrypted. In other words: you see a file or read some raw data and you cannot prove that this is encrypted data vs random bits.
What kind of plausible deniability do you expect from Twitter? The app may leave numerous traces in the phone and this has nothing to do with Twitter but it is just the way things work. Once you know that Twitter was installed, where do you see room for plausible deniability?
Point two: you do not know whether the accounts were deleted. They may have been suspended/masked/whatever.
Point three: well, if you are taking into account internal espionnage, do you expect that the data from within Twitter will only be retrieved after the imprisonment?
What kind of plausible deniability do you expect from Twitter? The app may leave numerous traces in the phone and this has nothing to do with Twitter but it is just the way things work. Once you know that Twitter was installed, where do you see room for plausible deniability?
Point two: you do not know whether the accounts were deleted. They may have been suspended/masked/whatever.
Point three: well, if you are taking into account internal espionnage, do you expect that the data from within Twitter will only be retrieved after the imprisonment?
Plausible deniability. They aren’t immune to other countries’ laws.
They are immune to other countries' laws of they do not have a business presence there.
Please see my related comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33110323
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33110323
idem
I had interviewed an Iranian in the US a few months ago for a position, but he was not interested in the role we had open. There was a new opening so I looked him up, but now there was nothing. His personal site was gone, and his linkedIn vanished. Google still finds him on scholar and links to the downed page but the only way to see it is the wayback machine.
Please disclose his name if you find it appropriate.
When a guy is under arrest, He would be safer if everybody knows his name.
Jadi would be happy to know that he was on HN:) after getting free.
One of his hobbies was selecting news on HN and translating them for non English speakers in Iran.
You are on our mind bro. Hope to see you soon in your next podcast. #woman_life_freedom
You are on our mind bro. Hope to see you soon in your next podcast. #woman_life_freedom
He is arrested so probably shut down to protect him
Public twitter profiles are probably being grabbed and indexed by state agencies anyway.
Even the general public can use archives of twitter stream grabs to process past tweets: https://archive.org/details/twitterstream
Even the general public can use archives of twitter stream grabs to process past tweets: https://archive.org/details/twitterstream
Would love to know why my comment is being downvoted, that is, if you think that my either of my statement is wrong, please correct me, thanks!
Unless I'm being obtuse, wouldn't it be right for Twitter to state that it's disabled an account to protect the user and others rather than because it violates their rules?
Unless I'm being obtuse, wouldn't it be right for Twitter to state that it’s disabled an account in order to protect the user and others rather than because it violates their rules?
Funny how Twitter tolerates blatantly terrorist regimes like Iran while banning those who challenge them.
How do they justify this?
How do they justify this?
This was done for the activist, not against them.
For more information see:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33106622
For more information see:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33106622
Is this to protect his account from being accessed by authorities and checking his DMs? Isn't it better then to disable access to his DMs rather than blocking public tweets/timeline? I don't see a point in suspending his entire account when all his tweets would probably be available in some public archive/wayback machine.
(Have limited experience on the topic, just attempting to respond based on what little I do know.)
Twitter stating the obvious has no control over information that’s no longer on its servers. Possible Wayback may not not even be aware of the risks it’s creating.
That said, DMs are very much in Twitter’s control and it is not uncommon for highly motivated parties with substantial resources to either insert employees into companies like Twitter or target employees via bribes, blackmail, etc. Google’s first publicly disclosed attack, which among other things targeted activist accounts, very likely was a result of insider helping. Beyond that, if Twitter did not do anything, it is a very real possibility that the activist might be tortured for their passwords; if the accounts don’t exist, are not recoverable, at least for that specific reason, it would be irrelevant.
There are so many situations to account for, but deleting the account/data is this safest minimal viable path.
Twitter stating the obvious has no control over information that’s no longer on its servers. Possible Wayback may not not even be aware of the risks it’s creating.
That said, DMs are very much in Twitter’s control and it is not uncommon for highly motivated parties with substantial resources to either insert employees into companies like Twitter or target employees via bribes, blackmail, etc. Google’s first publicly disclosed attack, which among other things targeted activist accounts, very likely was a result of insider helping. Beyond that, if Twitter did not do anything, it is a very real possibility that the activist might be tortured for their passwords; if the accounts don’t exist, are not recoverable, at least for that specific reason, it would be irrelevant.
There are so many situations to account for, but deleting the account/data is this safest minimal viable path.
> Funny how Twitter tolerates blatantly terrorist regimes like Iran
They tolerate them just like how they tolerate the murderous f*cks who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs and proceeded to murder 1 million Iraqis. They are still on twitter. They have blue checkmarks. They make 6 figures or more. The whole lot of them, an entire administration...
They tolerate them just like how they tolerate the murderous f*cks who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs and proceeded to murder 1 million Iraqis. They are still on twitter. They have blue checkmarks. They make 6 figures or more. The whole lot of them, an entire administration...
They justify it very simply. They follow the laws of the countries they operate in.
If the US turned into a repressive single-party state that only held sham elections, Twitter would follow it's laws, too, whatever they would be.
If the US turned into a repressive single-party state that only held sham elections, Twitter would follow it's laws, too, whatever they would be.
Actually they try very hard to dodge the laws of the countries they're operating in. In India they've been playing all kinds of games to avoid following the law.
There was a particularly farcical argument used by them, which was on the lines of "our policies are better than your law."
They only complied when their employees faced arrest and other legal actions.
I don't get the impression that their senior management are grounded in reality. My popcorn is getting cold waiting for Twitter's muskification.
There was a particularly farcical argument used by them, which was on the lines of "our policies are better than your law."
They only complied when their employees faced arrest and other legal actions.
I don't get the impression that their senior management are grounded in reality. My popcorn is getting cold waiting for Twitter's muskification.
Sorry for my misleading comment. As stated many times, Twitter suspends accounts to protect the activist. So this is in fact fine.
Welcome to neoliberalism, where coca cola has a bottling plant in saudi arabia.
Apparently you can also violate the Twitter guidelines without being banned only if you are Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran who has done this for years, here is an example of him calling for violence to 'destroy' another country: [0]
Twitter really has one rule for some individuals and another rule for many. There is no justification for any of this from the big tech appeasers.
[0] https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864
Twitter really has one rule for some individuals and another rule for many. There is no justification for any of this from the big tech appeasers.
[0] https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864
> Twitter really has one rule for some individuals and another rule for many. There is no justification for any of this from the big tech appeasers.
Huh? Twitter has explicitly justified differential treatment for different kinds of users -- particularly in the name of public interest. Their rules and policies site has a page titled, "About public-interest exceptions on Twitter":
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...
> At present, we limit exceptions to one critical type of public-interest content—Tweets from elected and government officials—given the significant public interest in knowing and being able to discuss their actions and statements.
> As a result, in rare instances, we may choose to leave up a Tweet from an elected or government official that would otherwise be taken down.
Huh? Twitter has explicitly justified differential treatment for different kinds of users -- particularly in the name of public interest. Their rules and policies site has a page titled, "About public-interest exceptions on Twitter":
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...
> At present, we limit exceptions to one critical type of public-interest content—Tweets from elected and government officials—given the significant public interest in knowing and being able to discuss their actions and statements.
> As a result, in rare instances, we may choose to leave up a Tweet from an elected or government official that would otherwise be taken down.
Do you think someone should be banned for saying something like:
The Nazi regime is a deadly, cancerous growth and a detriment to this region. It will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed. Then, the shame will fall on those who put their facilities at the service of normalization of relations with this regime.
The Nazi regime is a deadly, cancerous growth and a detriment to this region. It will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed. Then, the shame will fall on those who put their facilities at the service of normalization of relations with this regime.
Coincidentally, the Nazis also spread lies about Jews murdering children. I'm sure if Twitter had been around, you would've seen similar Tweets coming from them, for very much the same reasons.
why was he arrested ?
What the fuck is this insane notion being pushed in this thread? How does having your account suspended protect you? It's probably the primary way that he can get his story out or at the very least let people know that he's alright. Authorities almost certainly have all of the relevant data that has been expunged from the public's view already. And even if they don't, it's on archive.org
Some next level doublethink going on in this thread.
Some next level doublethink going on in this thread.
Jadi (Amirhossein Mirmirani) had 133K Twitter followers. He is a lovely computer geek and open source veteran from Tehran, Iran. He has been active educating youth for many years. He was arrested yesterday.
His account is suspended after his arrest, which is most probably due to fake reports from the cyber army. If you work at Twitter or Facebook, please help unsuspending his account which is vital for him to reach his audience and give him visibility, even when he is arrested. They want to remove his internet presence.
Profile screenshot: https://twitter.com/KavehMadani/status/1577695715131899904/p...
His Website in Persian: https://jadi.net
Instagram (suspended): https://www.instagram.com/jadijadinet/