Twitter “Silenced” Dissenting Voices During Protests in Egypt: Research(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Twitter “Silenced” Dissenting Voices During Protests in Egypt: Research
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/twitter-egypt-protests-accounts-suspended
58 comments
Check "Display media that may contain sensitive content" at https://twitter.com/settings/safety to not have certain tweets hidden by default.
Users sometimes mark their tweets sensitive when they believe it may attract controversy, not just when it is genuinely disturbing.
Users sometimes mark their tweets sensitive when they believe it may attract controversy, not just when it is genuinely disturbing.
Given it applies to everything they post it seems, could also be that the user set the flag to apply this to all their posts automatically. (I don't think there is a way of telling the difference)
Why would you spend the time to write a comment that takes longer to write than to debunk?
https://mobile.twitter.com/encrier
How does that debunk it? It shows exactly what I describe.
It seems to be only embedded images that show as sensitive. Not the text and not embedded tweets.
Which is exactly what the matching twitter option does: it marks media you post as "sensitive" and puts the click-through in front of it. Text and retweets aren't media, and you can't enable a filter for them (there is an profile-wide "this profile may contain potentially sensitive content" warning too, but as far as I know that is only applied by Twitter, not a user setting)
Algorithmic censorship has become the new norm. If you have opinions outside the Overton window you will be silently penalized on Twitter, FB, etc, and your posts will silently not appear. You have to go along with the tribe that you've been gerrymandered into or else you'll be silenced.
Content is dumbed down everywhere because you can only post things on these platforms which are compatible with advertisers. Big brands don't want to see their ads alongside someone's fringe opinions, thus they have to punish the "bad" content to appease their customers.
Content is dumbed down everywhere because you can only post things on these platforms which are compatible with advertisers. Big brands don't want to see their ads alongside someone's fringe opinions, thus they have to punish the "bad" content to appease their customers.
People love to rah rah this stuff when it helps their ideology then wake up and find they’ve created an even bigger monster.
Politicians will change but this type of thing rarely comes back after it’s being given away.
Politicians will change but this type of thing rarely comes back after it’s being given away.
> People love to rah rah this stuff when it helps their ideology then wake up and find they’ve created an even bigger monster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
No one seems to understand that the monster they want to replace modern society with will consume them first.
Any major revolution, once properly entrenched, targets those who started the revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
No one seems to understand that the monster they want to replace modern society with will consume them first.
Any major revolution, once properly entrenched, targets those who started the revolution.
First they came for the socialists.
Buddy please read the damn poem. It was about "modern society" purging itself of the kind of people you are criticizing.
Buddy please read the damn poem. It was about "modern society" purging itself of the kind of people you are criticizing.
I think you've missed my point.
The quote isn't relevant from a "the socialists will be the first to go" perspective. Its relevant from a "the ideologies that fuel revolution will be the first to go".
Also, I'm not seeking to criticize anyone. My goal is to point out that revolution is ugly business that often (not always) eats its own.
The quote isn't relevant from a "the socialists will be the first to go" perspective. Its relevant from a "the ideologies that fuel revolution will be the first to go".
Also, I'm not seeking to criticize anyone. My goal is to point out that revolution is ugly business that often (not always) eats its own.
One of the most 'successful' revolutions I know of is the French Revolution and from what little I know it was a good example of what you are talking about.
Three choice quotes near each other Robespierre's Wikipedia page:
* In July he was appointed as a member of the powerful Committee of Public Safety.
* Robespierre is best known for his role during the "reign of Terror"
* Robespierre was eventually brought down by his obsession with the vision of an ideal republic and his indifference to the human costs of installing it. The Terror ended with Robespierre's arrest on 9 Thermidor and his execution on the day after.
As a rule, revolutionaries are simply not the sort of people who are best left in charge.
Three choice quotes near each other Robespierre's Wikipedia page:
* In July he was appointed as a member of the powerful Committee of Public Safety.
* Robespierre is best known for his role during the "reign of Terror"
* Robespierre was eventually brought down by his obsession with the vision of an ideal republic and his indifference to the human costs of installing it. The Terror ended with Robespierre's arrest on 9 Thermidor and his execution on the day after.
As a rule, revolutionaries are simply not the sort of people who are best left in charge.
The poem really doesn't work from a "the revolution eats its own" perspective. It's about Nazis getting rid of their political enemies, not about revolutionaries purging their own ranks.
> "It's about Nazis getting rid of their political enemies, not about revolutionaries purging their own ranks."
"Revolutionary" is a word I would reserve for people I agree with, but it should be noted that the Nazis purged their own ranks. "Political enemies" and "their own ranks" are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Rather, the later is a subset of the former.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
(Note also that poet in question was originally a Nazi, until he realized he'd be targeted by them too.)
"Revolutionary" is a word I would reserve for people I agree with, but it should be noted that the Nazis purged their own ranks. "Political enemies" and "their own ranks" are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Rather, the later is a subset of the former.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
(Note also that poet in question was originally a Nazi, until he realized he'd be targeted by them too.)
Yes, the Nazis also purged their own ranks, but the groups listed were all external political enemies. If the poem were worded in the first person as "First we came for ...", it would serve better to illustrate your own group turning against you rather than it being some third party you don't dare speak out against.
I can’t reply to the dead post, so I’m commenting here:
I see this confusion a lot, and I don’t understand it. North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and its clearly not democratic. China claims to be communist when they’re not.
I see this confusion a lot, and I don’t understand it. North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and its clearly not democratic. China claims to be communist when they’re not.
I think that's part of the point, though. People get sold on an ideology; enough so that they revolt. But those who begin the revolution are fodder for the machine as it progresses.
The socialist party in Germany began with socialists. Then, when Hitler and Co. had concentrated enough power, their original constituents became liabilities and thus political enemies.
[edit]
I'm curious to know if the downvotes are because I'm not adding anything substantive? Or if they are happening because someone disagrees with what I am saying?
Am I incorrect in my assertions?
[/edit]
The socialist party in Germany began with socialists. Then, when Hitler and Co. had concentrated enough power, their original constituents became liabilities and thus political enemies.
[edit]
I'm curious to know if the downvotes are because I'm not adding anything substantive? Or if they are happening because someone disagrees with what I am saying?
Am I incorrect in my assertions?
[/edit]
The big Socialist party in Germany at the time (SPD) never had any relation to Hitler at all. They founded a paramilitary organization to fight both Nazis and Communists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front
I think you're overthinking the "Socialist" in the NSDAP's name. Their ideas weren't exactly compatible with mainstream Socialism.
I think you're overthinking the "Socialist" in the NSDAP's name. Their ideas weren't exactly compatible with mainstream Socialism.
other examples of socalisim also ended in large body counts, the "doing it wrong" excuse misses the lack of a positive feedback loop in the system.
The NSDAP was neither "the socialist party", nor really "a socialist party", at any time.
A poem about counter-revolutionary state repression leading to genocide was warning you about... revolutionaries. Got it.
And not even society's at large Overton window.
It could be the "setting the tone" minority (pundits, influencers, journalists, etc) Overton window...
It could be the "setting the tone" minority (pundits, influencers, journalists, etc) Overton window...
It absolutely is.
We've seen from CNN and Google that their views don't match society at large, and they're happy to use their positions of influence to "correct" society.
That's what caused CNN's ratings to collapse, and Google to face both a lawsuit (PragerU) and investigation (from Congress).
Did either stop them? Of course not -- they know better than you!
(If anyone wonders why my posts are dead -- it's because HN employs the same kind of Overton censorship, under the guise of policing tone.)
We've seen from CNN and Google that their views don't match society at large, and they're happy to use their positions of influence to "correct" society.
That's what caused CNN's ratings to collapse, and Google to face both a lawsuit (PragerU) and investigation (from Congress).
Did either stop them? Of course not -- they know better than you!
(If anyone wonders why my posts are dead -- it's because HN employs the same kind of Overton censorship, under the guise of policing tone.)
It's not just advertisers, it's any sort of controversy whatsoever. Monopoly platforms and walled gardens (FB, Twitter, YouTube etc.) don't want to deal with controversy, so they'd much rather silence such opinions. Federated or decentralized platforms are the only way to get sustainable freedom of expression on the web.
I think that's only half true. If you were following the controversial social media engagement by the Trump campaign, it was clearly established that having two emotionally invested warring sides on either side of an opinion is a huge driver for platform engagement. So I think to some extent these platforms need highly contentious trending topics to be "relevant."
Blaming "Big brands" for what could also be concerted effort by the owners of these "Big brands" and their friends to affect control over political speech.
Blaming advertising gets tiresome. It is a device, not the cause, of "dumbing down" of Western discourse and curtailing of free political speech.
If you insist that it is "advertising" that is the cause of this malaise, then you must agree that "advertising" is not compatible with modern free democtratic societies and needs to be made illegal.
Blaming advertising gets tiresome. It is a device, not the cause, of "dumbing down" of Western discourse and curtailing of free political speech.
If you insist that it is "advertising" that is the cause of this malaise, then you must agree that "advertising" is not compatible with modern free democtratic societies and needs to be made illegal.
If you insist that it is 'advertising' that is the cause of this malaise, then you must agree that 'advertising' is not compatible with modern free democtratic societies and needs to be made illegal
That's a leap. A quote that's always stuck with me: "It's important to recognise one of the catastrophist's rhetorical moves: Stories of doom thrive on turning a tension into an incompatibility."
It's more useful to think of the conversation we're having as the ongoing negotiation of a long-standing tension, with social media providing a new wrinkle.
That's a leap. A quote that's always stuck with me: "It's important to recognise one of the catastrophist's rhetorical moves: Stories of doom thrive on turning a tension into an incompatibility."
It's more useful to think of the conversation we're having as the ongoing negotiation of a long-standing tension, with social media providing a new wrinkle.
I am flabbergasted at these sorts of posts. You can find posts from all parts of the political spectrum on Twitter. If there was truly "censorship" based on political stance it wouldn't be the cesspool that it is already.
What I don't get is this sort of discourse on a site filled with developers. If you don't like the established platforms, why don't you just create your own? The entire end-to-end vision of the Internet is still alive and well.
What I don't get is this sort of discourse on a site filled with developers. If you don't like the established platforms, why don't you just create your own? The entire end-to-end vision of the Internet is still alive and well.
It's not just the magical algorithms of twitter and facebook. This shows up with simpler algorithms that are nearly just "count upvotes." If I say something outside the overton window here, it's going straight to the bottom. I think its a feature of any algo that tries to help you not have to read the impossible 100% of things happening. It has to sort by something.
But at least it's other people, rather than a supposedly neutral company doing it...
[deleted]
> Algorithmic censorship has become the new norm. If you have opinions outside the Overton window you will be silently penalized on Twitter, FB, etc, and your posts will silently not appear. You have to go along with the tribe that you've been gerrymandered into or else you'll be silenced.
Algorithmic censorship, and demand for it, is the problem. However, that has nothing to do with Overton windows. The issue is the prioritization of recall over all else. Various groups (e.g., popular outcry, Legal) demand that as much actual abusive content as possible be flagged and suppressed or removed. In their view, falsely flagging content is acceptable collateral damage as long as the real bad stuff gets caught as well.
The precision in classification isn't there to enforce an Overton window even if that was the goal.
Algorithmic censorship, and demand for it, is the problem. However, that has nothing to do with Overton windows. The issue is the prioritization of recall over all else. Various groups (e.g., popular outcry, Legal) demand that as much actual abusive content as possible be flagged and suppressed or removed. In their view, falsely flagging content is acceptable collateral damage as long as the real bad stuff gets caught as well.
The precision in classification isn't there to enforce an Overton window even if that was the goal.
[deleted]
Social media algorithms of course influence the Overton Window. It doesn't matter if the developers are consciously conspiring to do it or not; algorithmic bias is naturally inherent.
I'm not meaning to suggest that algorithms don't have unconscious (WRT their designers) biases. I'm saying the algorithms used for compliance and compliance-adjacent tasks skew very heavily towards recall, resulting generally in poor precision. In many cases, the precision is so low that it overwhelms any conscious or unconscious bias in the algorithm.
Sometimes their opinion of what constitutes real bad stuff isn't shared by society at large outside of their particular ideological group. It almost always boils down to punishing wrong think where some self anointed group gets to decide for everyone what is permissible thought. The really stupid part in all of this is the belief that these tools can't be taken away from them and used against them. History shows such power shifts can happen quickly and often with terrible results.
It isn't just social media. Google's censorship of their search results predates censorship on social media by a few years. It feels like a century ago, but traditional media and the elites attacked Google until Google gave in on censoring google news and google search.
Also, I think we distract ourselves when we blame "advertisers" for censorship. After all the top advertisers in the US are also the major media players - Comcast, AT&T, P&G, Disney, Charter, Verizon.
https://www.adbrands.net/us/top-us-advertisers.htm
So these media companies use their massive platforms to manipulate and control the public, they also use their advertising money to manipulate and control ( indirectly and directly ).
It isn't "advertisers", it is major mass media companies trying to control and influence new media. As has always happened, whether it is cable, radio, telegraph, etc.
Also, I think we distract ourselves when we blame "advertisers" for censorship. After all the top advertisers in the US are also the major media players - Comcast, AT&T, P&G, Disney, Charter, Verizon.
https://www.adbrands.net/us/top-us-advertisers.htm
So these media companies use their massive platforms to manipulate and control the public, they also use their advertising money to manipulate and control ( indirectly and directly ).
It isn't "advertisers", it is major mass media companies trying to control and influence new media. As has always happened, whether it is cable, radio, telegraph, etc.
Begging the question as to why websites like Twitter have still not been banned in democratic countries...
It's a walled garden of strong control. The rules are whatever they say they are. Delete that post and go stand in the corner.
Quazi-dictatorships are excellent at supressing minority thought. Majority rule countries will have no problem with Twitter.
Quazi-dictatorships are excellent at supressing minority thought. Majority rule countries will have no problem with Twitter.
They should have a problem with private companies not only becoming communication infrastructure, but then doing censorship !
It's not like the approved opinions are going to get censored. Like FB it's a preception managment platform, they dont need to be honest or even pretend to be neutral. The dogma they push will constantly be "not doing enough". The social managment class is more than happy with that situation.
It's a form of Strategy of Tension.
More laws(rules to follow) is not a fix, that's the brier patch. I think many of the problems go back to copyright law if one games it out; limiting exposure to necessary information. Even obtaining news footage archives is difficult. Removing their ability to prevent re-broadcast would fix many things. Tip-toeing around on fair use is a serious limit on critical speech.
It's a form of Strategy of Tension.
More laws(rules to follow) is not a fix, that's the brier patch. I think many of the problems go back to copyright law if one games it out; limiting exposure to necessary information. Even obtaining news footage archives is difficult. Removing their ability to prevent re-broadcast would fix many things. Tip-toeing around on fair use is a serious limit on critical speech.
Yes, copyright terms should be set to be (as it once was) to be 14 years, renewable against a fee once.
> Like FB it's a preception managment platform, they dont need to be honest or even pretend to be neutral.
If it's a platform (and platforms, IMHO, go against the very spirit of the Internet), then they should be forced by law to be neutral.
> Like FB it's a preception managment platform, they dont need to be honest or even pretend to be neutral.
If it's a platform (and platforms, IMHO, go against the very spirit of the Internet), then they should be forced by law to be neutral.
Also relevant "Twitter’s ‘head of editorial’ for Middle East is officer in British Army’s information warfare unit" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/twitter-exec...
Remember when people were looking at the Arab Spring and saying "this will be covered on social media more quickly than traditional media"
But now it appears new media has become as bad as traditional media but with more influence and less competition.
I don't understand why twitter still exists.
But now it appears new media has become as bad as traditional media but with more influence and less competition.
I don't understand why twitter still exists.
Right?
Didn't Twitter and other social media platforms lay claim to "helping" voice and organize the people to protest and revolt during the Arab Spring? I remember them being pretty proud of that.
Didn't Twitter and other social media platforms lay claim to "helping" voice and organize the people to protest and revolt during the Arab Spring? I remember them being pretty proud of that.
It’s as if Twitter’s models are trained to highlight the tweets that agree and are empathetic to the original tweet.
Users pile on with the “OMG yes this. This. This!” or “I don’t know why people like this exist “ and the rest of the crew are there to nod their heads.
There’s no discussion on Twitter. It’s either pats on the back or one liner screaming matches.
Users pile on with the “OMG yes this. This. This!” or “I don’t know why people like this exist “ and the rest of the crew are there to nod their heads.
There’s no discussion on Twitter. It’s either pats on the back or one liner screaming matches.
Sounds like the accounts got reported for abusive language. But since the process is opaque, there's no way to know.
"abusive language" is such a generic term.
I was thinking that if I wanted every critic of mine to shut up I could say I identify as a female and then get them all banned for misgendering me if they ever referred to me as he/him :P
I was thinking that if I wanted every critic of mine to shut up I could say I identify as a female and then get them all banned for misgendering me if they ever referred to me as he/him :P
Wow, talk about a 180° turn in just a few years!
valley-green(2)
I think incompetence is more likely. It doesn't take much of a ring of accounts flagging an account to get it temporarily suspended. There appear to be thresholds which will automatically suspend an account, pending appeal or review.
It's easy enough to have happen if you disagree with certain groups of extremely online people and they take a personal disliking, so it would certainly be within the power of any mildly capable security agency.
It's easy enough to have happen if you disagree with certain groups of extremely online people and they take a personal disliking, so it would certainly be within the power of any mildly capable security agency.
I don’t know the specifics here and clearly we can all agree that silencing government opposition views isn’t health. There is a subtly of tweeting this politician or governor is corrupt and we the people don’t like this vs these government pigs are evil and we should burn them.
Perhaps dissenting views and aggressive violent tweets can be considered differently?
The issue is detecting them, accurately, at scale.
"The following media includes potentially sensitive content" for content like https://twitter.com/encrier/status/1188067004240019456 Which translates to
* Retrieve people's money
* Resignation of government
* New parliament
Thank you Twitter for "protecting" me from being offended.
EDIT: I've been getting very angry everytime I see demands for censorship on social media, it's like people forgot they had their own revolution at some point and really needed to communicate what was happening to make it a reality.