Twitter suspends the account of Venezuela's new National Assembly(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Twitter suspends the account of Venezuela's new National Assembly
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1351895337745657862
117 comments
Exactly, this shouldn't be a freedom of speech issue -- Twitter's freedom to say whatever it wants on Twitter should trump anybody else's freedom to say whatever they want on Twitter.
But it is a freedom of speech issue because Twitter is a monopoly/gatekeeper. That's what needs fixing.
But it is a freedom of speech issue because Twitter is a monopoly/gatekeeper. That's what needs fixing.
No solution. Internet infrastructure has been politicised now too and credit card processors.
AWS and Google Cloud are not the only infrastructure providers around ya know ;). There are plenty of other superior and cheaper alternatives like Linode, Vultr, Digital Ocean, OVH, Hetzner etc.
Regrading credit card processors, I don't see why it'd be necessary for a personal website. If it's about accepting donations, one could accept cryptocurrency.
Regrading credit card processors, I don't see why it'd be necessary for a personal website. If it's about accepting donations, one could accept cryptocurrency.
And you'll be really naive to think that Vultr/DO/OVH/... won't deplatform you like others did already. Pretty sure that if you search a bit you can find people that has been booted off them
This is a poorly thought out comment. Hosting providers are a commodity and so they cannot de-platform you. Only a platform like Twitter can de-platform you. If a hosting provider suspends your account, you still own the domain and all your data - you'd just move it to the next host.
Besides, when there's sufficient demand, there'd be several more options for hosting, including ones that are "pro free speech". OTOH, monopolies could end up destroying individual liberty and choice.
Besides, when there's sufficient demand, there'd be several more options for hosting, including ones that are "pro free speech". OTOH, monopolies could end up destroying individual liberty and choice.
Yeah I agree that "deplatforming" wasn't the good terminology.
You'll have to had external backups, I know lot of people are just using their hosting provider backup services.
There can be several more options for hosting (just as there's other options for a Twitter-like platform), but eventually, instead of harassing the host to suspend them, the upstream provider could be harassed to suspend the host itself. And you don't have as much choice when it comes to Tier-1 ISPs.
You'll have to had external backups, I know lot of people are just using their hosting provider backup services.
There can be several more options for hosting (just as there's other options for a Twitter-like platform), but eventually, instead of harassing the host to suspend them, the upstream provider could be harassed to suspend the host itself. And you don't have as much choice when it comes to Tier-1 ISPs.
It's interesting how Twitter is self-isolating.
Why would any other country use it now?
No doubt this will lead to countries leaving Twitter and making their own. Indeed at least Germany, France[1] and Mexico[2] realize the problem.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico/mexic...
Why would any other country use it now?
No doubt this will lead to countries leaving Twitter and making their own. Indeed at least Germany, France[1] and Mexico[2] realize the problem.
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico/mexic...
> Why would any other country use it now?
For the same reason people were using it before. Everyone is on Twitter. A much, much smaller fraction are on Twitter-alternatives.
That said, I wish them the best of luck, as I hope alternatives are able to succeed in the near future.
For the same reason people were using it before. Everyone is on Twitter. A much, much smaller fraction are on Twitter-alternatives.
That said, I wish them the best of luck, as I hope alternatives are able to succeed in the near future.
Nowhere near "everyone" is on Twitter. I have to admit that I don't know a single person who is (I'm sure some of them are, it's not like I ask everyone if they use some specific platform).
The point is that a lot of media people is, and posting there gets you exposure. But as this group of people is much smaller than your proverbial "everyone", moving them off Twitter is a much easier affair.
I have often thought about what would happen if a small number of very high profile Twitter users with a wide reach to various different groups decided to set up their own servers (Mastodon perhaps) and asked their followers to go there. How many such high-profile users would you need before Twitter's momentum completely stops? I argue that that number is very small.
The point is that a lot of media people is, and posting there gets you exposure. But as this group of people is much smaller than your proverbial "everyone", moving them off Twitter is a much easier affair.
I have often thought about what would happen if a small number of very high profile Twitter users with a wide reach to various different groups decided to set up their own servers (Mastodon perhaps) and asked their followers to go there. How many such high-profile users would you need before Twitter's momentum completely stops? I argue that that number is very small.
That's fair. I don't even have a Twitter account myself (except back when the Nintendo Switch required a social account to export screenshots). But I am _viewing_ tweets my friends share on an almost daily basis as its become the media of choice for realtime news in my circles.
https://hntrending.com/domains/year/index.html
Seems to be the same for HN, though my guess is that Twitter's rise in HN exposure is due to the BLM protests, the Capitol incident, and Trump.
> How many such high-profile users would you need before Twitter's momentum completely stops? I argue that that number is very small.
Microsoft made that bet, and got Twitch's top 2 streamers on to their platform (Mixer), but it still died within a year.
There's a chicken-and-the-egg problem here. High-profile users have no financial incentive to move to a smaller platform. Maybe a platform that isn't as expensive as livestreaming, backed by someone as huge as Microsoft, could sign enough contracts to break the barrier of the network effect.
Another solution would be upending social media's toxic money-maker: blackbox algorithms for targeted ads. That'll give the decentralized Fediverse model a chance. We did see Gab fall under too much server strain, but it's essentially a centralized version of Mastodon.
https://hntrending.com/domains/year/index.html
Seems to be the same for HN, though my guess is that Twitter's rise in HN exposure is due to the BLM protests, the Capitol incident, and Trump.
> How many such high-profile users would you need before Twitter's momentum completely stops? I argue that that number is very small.
Microsoft made that bet, and got Twitch's top 2 streamers on to their platform (Mixer), but it still died within a year.
There's a chicken-and-the-egg problem here. High-profile users have no financial incentive to move to a smaller platform. Maybe a platform that isn't as expensive as livestreaming, backed by someone as huge as Microsoft, could sign enough contracts to break the barrier of the network effect.
Another solution would be upending social media's toxic money-maker: blackbox algorithms for targeted ads. That'll give the decentralized Fediverse model a chance. We did see Gab fall under too much server strain, but it's essentially a centralized version of Mastodon.
> We did see Gab fall under too much server strain, but it's essentially a centralized version of Mastodon.
Mastodon is a quite heavy application and it's arguable that it was never really designed for high-volume traffic (it's supposed to be decentralised after all). Also, I believe Twitter had a lot of performance issues and it took them years to fix that, despite having a ridiculous amount of money available to them.
Gab could easily have embraced federation (but, I presume, only with like-minded instances since no decent instances would want to federate with them) but they decided they wanted to be another Twitter, but without the resources of Twitter.
Mastodon is a quite heavy application and it's arguable that it was never really designed for high-volume traffic (it's supposed to be decentralised after all). Also, I believe Twitter had a lot of performance issues and it took them years to fix that, despite having a ridiculous amount of money available to them.
Gab could easily have embraced federation (but, I presume, only with like-minded instances since no decent instances would want to federate with them) but they decided they wanted to be another Twitter, but without the resources of Twitter.
True, US didn't recognize the National Assembly, but many countries (Lima Group) didn't accept it... Canada for example formally recognized Juan Guaidó as President of the National Assembly over a year ago.
Clearly no agenda here. Twitter backing an illegitimate US backed tin pot dictator and denying the legitmately elected government a voice.
But i guess, private company and all that, doesn't matter if what they're doing aligns completely with US military interests or so the argument goes.
But i guess, private company and all that, doesn't matter if what they're doing aligns completely with US military interests or so the argument goes.
[deleted]
> Clearly no agenda here. Twitter backing an illegitimate US backed tin pot dictator and denying the legitmately elected government a voice.
As far as I can tell, the group you're calling the "legitimately elected government" is that of the tin pot dictator that's run Venezuela into the ground and ran a sham election to cement its power:
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-congress-socialists-con...:
> Maduro’s allies swept legislative elections last month boycotted by the opposition and denounced as a sham by the U.S., the European Union and several other foreign governments. While the vote was marred by anemically low turnout, it nonetheless seemed to relegate into irrelevancy the U.S.-backed opposition led by lawmaker Juan Guaidó.
The government there bribes voters with food handouts. Think of how bad things must be if you can be bribed with food:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55211149:
> The government may now be in control of the National Assembly but the low turnout was hardly a "win".
> Sure, there were people who cast their vote, some still clinging to the man in power, others citing their democratic right as well as many more fearful of repercussions like losing food handouts if they didn't.
> But for the most part, there's an atmosphere of resignation. Most Venezuelans I've spoken to this past week saw little point in these elections and decided there were better things to be doing on Sunday.
> The vast queues at petrol stations rather than the polling stations explain what you need to know about politics here - that Venezuelans just want to survive another day and for politics to just go away.
As far as I can tell, the group you're calling the "legitimately elected government" is that of the tin pot dictator that's run Venezuela into the ground and ran a sham election to cement its power:
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-congress-socialists-con...:
> Maduro’s allies swept legislative elections last month boycotted by the opposition and denounced as a sham by the U.S., the European Union and several other foreign governments. While the vote was marred by anemically low turnout, it nonetheless seemed to relegate into irrelevancy the U.S.-backed opposition led by lawmaker Juan Guaidó.
The government there bribes voters with food handouts. Think of how bad things must be if you can be bribed with food:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55211149:
> The government may now be in control of the National Assembly but the low turnout was hardly a "win".
> Sure, there were people who cast their vote, some still clinging to the man in power, others citing their democratic right as well as many more fearful of repercussions like losing food handouts if they didn't.
> But for the most part, there's an atmosphere of resignation. Most Venezuelans I've spoken to this past week saw little point in these elections and decided there were better things to be doing on Sunday.
> The vast queues at petrol stations rather than the polling stations explain what you need to know about politics here - that Venezuelans just want to survive another day and for politics to just go away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)
https://www.mintpressnews.com/juan-guidos-latest-coup-attemp...
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/11/21249203/venezuela-coup-jordan...
https://www.mintpressnews.com/juan-guidos-latest-coup-attemp...
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/11/21249203/venezuela-coup-jordan...
from Jacobin; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNfIsS_DeSE
Is that a problem? I'm not so blinkered that I'd object to toppling a regime like Maduro's, and the main issue with this effort seems to be incompetence and proceeding with insufficient resources.
BTW, Wikipedia considers MintPress News to be unreliable because it "publishes false or fabricated information":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
BTW, Wikipedia considers MintPress News to be unreliable because it "publishes false or fabricated information":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
>Is that a problem? I'm not so blinkered that I'd object to toppling a regime like Maduro's,
Yes america believing it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world and police other countries to put in governments sympathetic to US interests is a problem. At least to everyone outside the US anyway.
Yes america believing it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world and police other countries to put in governments sympathetic to US interests is a problem. At least to everyone outside the US anyway.
> Yes america believing it has the right to interfere anywhere in the world and police other countries to put in governments sympathetic to US interests is a problem. At least to everyone outside the US anyway.
I'm not so sure about "everyone." Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt, at least when taken to the extreme you seem to take it. Some very shitty, powerful people find noninterference in their affairs to be a very useful concept, and I deny they have any right to that. That's not to say interference is always justified or always done for good reasons, but it's definitely a valid option on the table.
I'm not so sure about "everyone." Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt, at least when taken to the extreme you seem to take it. Some very shitty, powerful people find noninterference in their affairs to be a very useful concept, and I deny they have any right to that. That's not to say interference is always justified or always done for good reasons, but it's definitely a valid option on the table.
Well in the case of Venezuela, America's been interfering with their country since they decided to leave the IMF. Sanctions were imposed upon them and generally, they've been punished by America since and who have made multiple attempts through economic pressure and more direct actions to institute a government that will do what america wants.
>Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt,
Well let's look back at some recent history of interference by america. They interfered in the middle east so they could take out the Taliban they trained and armed during the 80's and secure oil.pipelines between the middle east and Russia. This was continued into Libya and Syria using another us backed terrorist group, Isis.
Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Maybe we can go back to Jamaica in the early 70's and discuss how america armed the political party opposed to Jamaican independence and flooded the country with guns turning it into what essentially became a warzone throughout the 70's and 80's.
Maybe Columbia where the cia backed a government that supported their clandestine cocaine operations responsible for the crack epidemic in poor urban america?
When has America's interference in other countries benefitted anyone other than american corporations and american interests?
If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
>Also, this principle of noninterference you seem to advocate is morally bankrupt,
Well let's look back at some recent history of interference by america. They interfered in the middle east so they could take out the Taliban they trained and armed during the 80's and secure oil.pipelines between the middle east and Russia. This was continued into Libya and Syria using another us backed terrorist group, Isis.
Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Maybe we can go back to Jamaica in the early 70's and discuss how america armed the political party opposed to Jamaican independence and flooded the country with guns turning it into what essentially became a warzone throughout the 70's and 80's.
Maybe Columbia where the cia backed a government that supported their clandestine cocaine operations responsible for the crack epidemic in poor urban america?
When has America's interference in other countries benefitted anyone other than american corporations and american interests?
If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
> Well let's look back at some recent history of interference by america. They interfered in the middle east so they could take out the Taliban they trained and armed during the 80's
You know there's a lot more context there, right? Also, if you start a fire for one reason (e.g. to cook a meal), it's not like you have to stand by that fire to the bitter end, and cannot put it out if it starts to burn down your house.
> Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Was the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait also fabricated? Because that set things before well before that testimony. Have you looked at the dates?
From your link:
> The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990...
Other parts of the article indicate similar allegations were circulating in September 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War:
> The US administration had at first been indecisive with an "undertone ... of resignation to the invasion and even adaptation to it as a fait accompli" until the UK's prime minister Margaret Thatcher played a powerful role, reminding the President that appeasement in the 1930s had led to war, that Saddam would have the whole Gulf at his mercy along with 65 percent of the world's oil supply, and famously urging President Bush "not to go wobbly".[30]
> Once persuaded, US officials insisted on a total Iraqi pullout from Kuwait, without any linkage to other Middle Eastern problems, accepting the British view that any concessions would strengthen Iraqi influence in the region for years to come.[82]
The citations for those last two paragraphs indicate that happen in August 1990.
> If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
Because, unfortunately, the world is not so simple and neat. It's complex and ugly. Why did the US ally with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis, when the Soviet system was probably only slightly less evil than the Nazi one? Do you think the US should instead have allied with the Nazis against the Soviets, or maybe just sat the whole thing out and let the Nazis keep Western Europe?
You know there's a lot more context there, right? Also, if you start a fire for one reason (e.g. to cook a meal), it's not like you have to stand by that fire to the bitter end, and cannot put it out if it starts to burn down your house.
> Let's go back a little further to the gulf war where a complete and total fabrication led america to interfere in the middle east.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Was the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait also fabricated? Because that set things before well before that testimony. Have you looked at the dates?
From your link:
> The Nayirah testimony was a false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990...
Other parts of the article indicate similar allegations were circulating in September 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War:
> The US administration had at first been indecisive with an "undertone ... of resignation to the invasion and even adaptation to it as a fait accompli" until the UK's prime minister Margaret Thatcher played a powerful role, reminding the President that appeasement in the 1930s had led to war, that Saddam would have the whole Gulf at his mercy along with 65 percent of the world's oil supply, and famously urging President Bush "not to go wobbly".[30]
> Once persuaded, US officials insisted on a total Iraqi pullout from Kuwait, without any linkage to other Middle Eastern problems, accepting the British view that any concessions would strengthen Iraqi influence in the region for years to come.[82]
The citations for those last two paragraphs indicate that happen in August 1990.
> If america really cared about about dealing with morally bankrupt countries and governments, why do they ally themselves with Saudi Arabia and other countries well known for human rights abuses? Why do they arm and train terrorist groups?
Because, unfortunately, the world is not so simple and neat. It's complex and ugly. Why did the US ally with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis, when the Soviet system was probably only slightly less evil than the Nazi one? Do you think the US should instead have allied with the Nazis against the Soviets, or maybe just sat the whole thing out and let the Nazis keep Western Europe?
Someone needs to watch Abby Martin's series on the U.S. empire's lies about Venezuela.
If there are food or petrol shortages in Venezuela, it's due to American economic warfare, not Maduro.
If there are food or petrol shortages in Venezuela, it's due to American economic warfare, not Maduro.
> Someone needs to watch Abby Martin's series on the U.S. empire's lies about Venezuela.
This Abby Martin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin:
> She hosted Breaking the Set on the Russian network RT America from 2012 to 2015. In 2015, Martin launched the investigative documentary and interview series The Empire Files, originally hosted by Telesur....
> In 2008, Martin was part of the 9/11 Truth movement,[9][10][11][12][13] starting her own 9/11 Truther group in San Diego.[14][15] In a 2008 video of a 9/11 truth movement demonstration, she said: "I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened."[16]
My understanding is Telesur is basically a Venezuelan-run RT clone. It's considered extremely unreliable by Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...:
> Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information.
This Abby Martin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin:
> She hosted Breaking the Set on the Russian network RT America from 2012 to 2015. In 2015, Martin launched the investigative documentary and interview series The Empire Files, originally hosted by Telesur....
> In 2008, Martin was part of the 9/11 Truth movement,[9][10][11][12][13] starting her own 9/11 Truther group in San Diego.[14][15] In a 2008 video of a 9/11 truth movement demonstration, she said: "I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened."[16]
My understanding is Telesur is basically a Venezuelan-run RT clone. It's considered extremely unreliable by Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...:
> Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information.
There are two types of twitter suspsnesions:
automated suspensions due to reports, which can be appealed
irrevocable suspensions at the discretion of twitter staff
I suspect this is the former. If an account gets enough reports, twitter's algos will automatically suspend it. The account owner then has the option to appeal it.
automated suspensions due to reports, which can be appealed
irrevocable suspensions at the discretion of twitter staff
I suspect this is the former. If an account gets enough reports, twitter's algos will automatically suspend it. The account owner then has the option to appeal it.
Twitter will keep going until they're on the same level as Habbo Hotel.
A medium where you can't communicate with your (political) adversaries has greatly reduced value even less relevance.
It's also kind of boring.
A medium where you can't communicate with your (political) adversaries has greatly reduced value even less relevance.
It's also kind of boring.
Are you comparing political suspensions with Habbo preventing child grooming?
I think that is how it could be interpreted by someone that only knows Habbo for that.
I think that is how it could be interpreted by someone that only knows Habbo for that.
Your not “communicating”, you’re just shouting into a void. No one is going to read or reply to your tweet.
Why is Twitter so aggressive with the suspensions these days, I mean there were such incidents in the past too
I agree with other answers here, but as a pushback, maybe it's not Twitter but rather the press and spotlight on it? There was an obvious "bump" after the insurrection, but I wonder if it reverted to it's mean and now we're just focused on that metric as we weren't before.
The Capitol riots probably spooked them into upping the strictness of their enforcement.
Being a good boy hoping current admin doesn't bring down the antitrust hammer.
Imagine a curve. On the x-axis is amount of censorship. On the y-axis is opposition. A slippery slope corresponds to a flat part of the curve, where a large increase in censorship causes a small increase in opposition.
Any policy in the middle of the slippery-slope is not stable. Political alliances are easiest to form advocating either side of it.
In this case there are few people who want Trump banned but think banning Venezuela's National Assembly is a step too far.
Any policy in the middle of the slippery-slope is not stable. Political alliances are easiest to form advocating either side of it.
In this case there are few people who want Trump banned but think banning Venezuela's National Assembly is a step too far.
> Twitter just suspended the account of Venezuela's new National Assembly, which was voted on in an election in December
There was no legitimate election. The Lima Group (practically every country in America - North and South), the EU, and indeed the UN say it's not legitimate. Some random person on twitter says it is.
Twitter has been banning Maduro backed accounts for years, to try to link this into the recent fair and transparent US elections and the removal of ex-president Trump from twitter is desparate
There was no legitimate election. The Lima Group (practically every country in America - North and South), the EU, and indeed the UN say it's not legitimate. Some random person on twitter says it is.
Twitter has been banning Maduro backed accounts for years, to try to link this into the recent fair and transparent US elections and the removal of ex-president Trump from twitter is desparate
Great, is the US back at over throwing foreign governments again? I was hopeful this would finally stop.
"back?" When did it stop?
Sanity restored, now back to waging war overseas!
Having a censor mindset is going to be destructive to Twitter and the userbase. Now everyone is going to want to find and ban anyone who they see as violating rules. Making PR issues as they go to the media saying XXX was banned, but not YYY who is just as bad as worse. A huge Pandora's box has been opened.
Did the state department issue an announcement or ask Twitter to do this?
Otherwise Twitter is interfering in foreign diplomacy and governments, be they legal, illegal, authoritarian or democratic.
Twitter should not be making these calls. This is a decision for the State Department to make.
Otherwise Twitter is interfering in foreign diplomacy and governments, be they legal, illegal, authoritarian or democratic.
Twitter should not be making these calls. This is a decision for the State Department to make.
> Otherwise Twitter is interfering in foreign diplomacy and governments, be they legal, illegal, authoritarian or democratic.
> Twitter should not be making these calls.
Twitter should totally should be making the calls. If the CCP wants to put a big propaganda poster in my front yard "for diplomatic reasons," I'd tell them to fuck off. Neither I nor Twitter have any obligation to carry the messages of any regime.
If they want to do diplomacy, they can send a representative to the State Department. If their government wants to communicate, let it use mechanisms it actually controls.
> Twitter should not be making these calls.
Twitter should totally should be making the calls. If the CCP wants to put a big propaganda poster in my front yard "for diplomatic reasons," I'd tell them to fuck off. Neither I nor Twitter have any obligation to carry the messages of any regime.
If they want to do diplomacy, they can send a representative to the State Department. If their government wants to communicate, let it use mechanisms it actually controls.
My problem is that this is a decision for the state department, not a blogging platform to make.
> My problem is that this is a decision for the state department, not a blogging platform to make.
I disagree with that strongly. If it was the State Department's decision, I'd have to host the CCP's propaganda in my yard until State Department told me to take it down.
Twitter isn't interfering with government-to-government diplomacy, so there's no diplomatic issue here.
I disagree with that strongly. If it was the State Department's decision, I'd have to host the CCP's propaganda in my yard until State Department told me to take it down.
Twitter isn't interfering with government-to-government diplomacy, so there's no diplomatic issue here.
It’s just a website. The world spun before it and it will continue spinning after it.
Yeah, it’s just a coffee shop, you can go buy your pastry elsewhere, the world won’t stop.
Yes... you can. Why are you acting like this can’t happen today? Any store can turn you away for any reason that isn’t a protected class.
Foreign governments are a protected class within the governmental community.
Can Twitter ban members of protected classes if they don’t ban all members of a protected class, can the coffee shop do the same?
Can Twitter ban members of protected classes if they don’t ban all members of a protected class, can the coffee shop do the same?
You are massively confused. All human beings on earth are members of protected classes.
Furthermore, foreign governments are not a protected class.
And being a member of a protected class doesn't mean you can't be banned for terms of service violations. You are just throwing legal sounding words together like a random word generator.
And being a member of a protected class doesn't mean you can't be banned for terms of service violations. You are just throwing legal sounding words together like a random word generator.
The same foreign governments that regularly get sanctioned? Doesn't seem very "protected" to me.
Right, but it’s not Willy-nilly. There is a process and chain of command, etc. It’s not something someone in the state department wakes up and decides, eh, I don’t like what Castro said. Let’s sanction them now. No, they have to offer reasons and go through chain of command.
You seem to be conflating "protected" with "requiring diligence before action is taken". You simply can't fire someone for being in a protected class. No amount of "process and chain of command, etc" is going to change that. It's not like you can't be fired by a manager willy-nilly for being black, but if it goes all the way up to the CEO it's totally fine.
Twitter is not part of the government so that is not relevant here (and I find that highly dubious to begin with). And no, you can’t ban one or every one of a protected class based specifically on that factor. You can still be banned for other reasons.
Social media has lots of power. The choices they make have a big impact.
Is that a controversial opinion?
Is that a controversial opinion?
These are just truisms so no, I wouldn’t say they’re controversial.
No more of a truism than a statement about the continuity of Earth's rotation :)
Fair play. I didn't think the spinning was controversial either. ;)
> Otherwise Twitter is interfering in foreign diplomacy and governments, be they legal, illegal, authoritarian or democratic.
This is giving Twitter way too much credit (and too much power). When did a stupid 280chr “microblogging” platform become a channel for foreign diplomacy? To make an absurd comparison, should we consider the politics subreddit a diplomatic venue too?
This is giving Twitter way too much credit (and too much power). When did a stupid 280chr “microblogging” platform become a channel for foreign diplomacy? To make an absurd comparison, should we consider the politics subreddit a diplomatic venue too?
> When did a stupid 280chr “microblogging” platform become a channel for foreign diplomacy?
Approximately in 2009. That's the date of the first known public example of the State Department influencing Twitter operations for diplomatic purposes. In that case, it was to lobby Twitter to delay a scheduled shutdown because of events happening in Iran.
> To make an absurd comparison, should we consider the politics subreddit a diplomatic venue too?
Any highly trafficked site co-ordinated and administered in the United States is, yes.
Approximately in 2009. That's the date of the first known public example of the State Department influencing Twitter operations for diplomatic purposes. In that case, it was to lobby Twitter to delay a scheduled shutdown because of events happening in Iran.
> To make an absurd comparison, should we consider the politics subreddit a diplomatic venue too?
Any highly trafficked site co-ordinated and administered in the United States is, yes.
[deleted]
Twitter's users are essentially volunteer contributors on a privately owned and operated web site, and Twitter has every right to do as it pleases with whatever content it hosts.
This is basically whining about the actions of mods on a free web forum.
Maybe governments shouldn't be using some poorly run private sector web site to communicate with the public.
This is basically whining about the actions of mods on a free web forum.
Maybe governments shouldn't be using some poorly run private sector web site to communicate with the public.
Perhaps we can have a discussion about the power of various private actors without resorting to calling critiques of that power "whining."
FWIW, I think you are confusing what is legally permissible today with the normative statement by GP that Twitter shouldn't be the one making these calls.
FWIW, I think you are confusing what is legally permissible today with the normative statement by GP that Twitter shouldn't be the one making these calls.
Twitter is exercising free speech rights, the same as when it suspended Trump's account.
People need to stop acting like Twitter is supposed to act as an organ of the US government.
People need to stop acting like Twitter is supposed to act as an organ of the US government.
Need to lose section 230 protection then. Can't be an editorial and have liability protection.
> Need to lose section 230 protection then. Can't be an editorial and have liability protection.
The entire point of section 230 is to enable editorial control so long as you aren't the content creator/submitter without the kinds of civil liability tied to “publisher” status otherwise, for both platforms and users on those platforms who are empowered to act in ways which have editorial impact.
And a one-sentence “you can't do X and Y” isn't really a substantive argument against Section 230.
The entire point of section 230 is to enable editorial control so long as you aren't the content creator/submitter without the kinds of civil liability tied to “publisher” status otherwise, for both platforms and users on those platforms who are empowered to act in ways which have editorial impact.
And a one-sentence “you can't do X and Y” isn't really a substantive argument against Section 230.
My understanding is they receive liability protection because they have no real editorial control, instead acting like a ISP
> My understanding is they receive liability protection because they have no real editorial control,
Your understanding is wrong. They receive liability protection for editorial decisions as a means of removing the disincentive for them to exercise editorial control that would otherwise exist.
Your understanding is wrong. They receive liability protection for editorial decisions as a means of removing the disincentive for them to exercise editorial control that would otherwise exist.
You are correct, that is how the law is currently constructed, that is why I am for section 230 reform. They should not be able to objectively edit content as they see fit while also being given liability protection. Give them the option, you get liability protection but can not censor free speech or you do not get liability protection and can edit content as they see fit. Right now they have their cake and can eat it too.
They aren’t editorializing; they are arguably trying to remove potential liabilities from their service.
If you walk into my bar and start screaming racist nonsense, I am well within my rights to ask you to leave the bar, and I do not have to let you back in. That doesn’t also suddenly make me liable for the nonsense you spewed.
If you walk into my bar and start screaming racist nonsense, I am well within my rights to ask you to leave the bar, and I do not have to let you back in. That doesn’t also suddenly make me liable for the nonsense you spewed.
Correct because you could be potential liable if you did nothing, right now they have no liability and the ability to have editorial control.
Hmm.. That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? I mean, Twitter is not an editor, whatever it publishes is not its speech, it's someone else's.
> That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech?
The act of choosing to use (or not use) ones resources to relay speech is, yes, an act of free speech (or perhaps more precisely free press, though the two are generally treated as a single right under the name “speech” for most purpose).
> Twitter is not an editor
It is, except for some civil liability purposes because of the specific Section 230 carveout for curated/moderated content which is user generated, a publisher. The choice to publish content, or not, is a speech/press act.
The act of choosing to use (or not use) ones resources to relay speech is, yes, an act of free speech (or perhaps more precisely free press, though the two are generally treated as a single right under the name “speech” for most purpose).
> Twitter is not an editor
It is, except for some civil liability purposes because of the specific Section 230 carveout for curated/moderated content which is user generated, a publisher. The choice to publish content, or not, is a speech/press act.
That's where things are getting confused. Anything Twitter publishes is 100% their speech, and they have a free speech right to say what they like, and not say what they don't like.
? So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other?
> So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other?
It would be, except for Section 230’s explicitly carveout of most civil liability as a publisher for online publishers (whether other users or platform operators) to the extent they are moderating/curating user-generated content, rather than producing/submitting content.
It would be, except for Section 230’s explicitly carveout of most civil liability as a publisher for online publishers (whether other users or platform operators) to the extent they are moderating/curating user-generated content, rather than producing/submitting content.
Both the author and the publisher are responsible.
Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate since it’s “their speech”.
No. They can agree, not agree, have no opinion, have no consideration, not even see. They can also take the position that some things they really, really can't abide.
> Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate
Nope, publishers often (sometimes with explicit notice to avoid doubt) publish things they disagree with because they think there is value in publishing it. They often also exercise their free speech/press rights to not publish other things they disagree with, even if they are submitted to them for publication.
Nope, publishers often (sometimes with explicit notice to avoid doubt) publish things they disagree with because they think there is value in publishing it. They often also exercise their free speech/press rights to not publish other things they disagree with, even if they are submitted to them for publication.
Venezuela is not part of the US, and they don't have any section 167 to either repeal or enforce. What a silly debate.
The prudent thing for Venezuela is to get together with a few other countries and jointly block Twitface.
The prudent thing for Venezuela is to get together with a few other countries and jointly block Twitface.
If someone created a Twitter account impersonating (not parodying) a Government or Government Agency, would people anticipate that Twitter might remove it?
Just going to go ahead and drop the EFF’s position on Section 230 into here…
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actua...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actua...
How about let the users decide for themselves who to follow or block?
Those who celebrated Trumps ban off Twitter will quickly see how the tables can turn. What is worse is that I can't come up with a suitable answer to the Twitter censorship problem. Regulate? Remove 230?
> I can't come up with a suitable answer to the Twitter censorship problem
Protocols over platforms. Get to a critical mass in a blogging protocol such that posts can be shared between platforms and apps that each moderate, or don't, according to their own needs.
The power of Twitter is in their silo. When enough of us de-silo they lose their power.
Protocols over platforms. Get to a critical mass in a blogging protocol such that posts can be shared between platforms and apps that each moderate, or don't, according to their own needs.
The power of Twitter is in their silo. When enough of us de-silo they lose their power.
Removing 230 would lead to exponentially more bans, as Twitter would be liable for anything users said. Regulation? Well, do you want the government to force you to allow me to put political signs on your lawn? Same thing. Twitter is private property, they can kick you off if they want.
I honestly don't see Twitter lasting much longer. They'll ban and woke mob their way to halving their user base. Once the mob finally has their safe space, investors will let them know how much that's worth.
If it's less toxic wouldn't it more valuable?
Depends on if it was actually toxic, or just full of people who want it to be toxic so they have something to fight against. I recently read a book by Alan Watts, and he said that one thing that liberal and conservative morality police have in common is that they don't actually want things to improve things, it's just the justification they use to try and control people. If either group were to "win", they'd just find some other cause to be upset about.
What's the name of the book? It sounds like an interesting read.
Investors typically want users and growth. It doesn't look good to be declining, no matter how you spin it. And toxicity is in the eye of the beholder, generally.
All the woke mob knows is anger and destruction. Leave them together alone and they'll turn on each other. This is a documented phenomena at this point.
Twitter was a far better experience before right-wingers discovered how to use it. After that, any sort of political discussion on the platform became an inexorable shouting match drawn out over months. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that left-wingers have learned and employed the same tactics since then. I care less about that problem because they do not have the same institutional support that Donald Trump used to enjoy.
Remember: Twitter bent over backwards to make exceptions to their own rules to keep Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone on their platform. Hell, they even exempted him from their repeat infringer policy that the DMCA mandates they have. If January 6th hadn't happened, he'd still be tweeting, and Twitter would still be coming up with new policies and arguments for why Donald Trump should remain on their platform.
Remember: Twitter bent over backwards to make exceptions to their own rules to keep Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone on their platform. Hell, they even exempted him from their repeat infringer policy that the DMCA mandates they have. If January 6th hadn't happened, he'd still be tweeting, and Twitter would still be coming up with new policies and arguments for why Donald Trump should remain on their platform.
I don't even think politics is the biggest problem. It's that everyone is trying to out virtue signal each other. Yesterday's mob was blasting Sotomayor for mispronouncing Kamala. Thinking it was bad, I watched, and I couldn't even figure it out. Best I can figure is she put not enough emphasis in the middle? It's ridiculous.
Just waiting will do. Let the free markets decide and please, for the love of god, don't involve governments. They are already stupidly powerful, let's not give them more of it ourselves.
Free markets cannot work without some oversight from the government - esp for the protection of rights of individuals against monopolies. Unfortunately the biggest consumer tech giants (Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft etc) have turned into 1 giant monopoly (since they collude illegally, as numerous news leaks have shown).
The only way to truly protect the rights of the individual would be for the government to step in at this moment to put big tech in it's place. Unfortunately I have very little confidence that it'd actually happen. Esp since the newly elected government in the US seems firmly on the side of big tech (political contributions and what not).
Failing government intervention, I fear a technological dystopia is not too far away in the future, if not already here. The other alternative ofc would be for individuals to take back control by moving out of these platforms towards their own personal websites with custom email and RSS feeds.
The only way to truly protect the rights of the individual would be for the government to step in at this moment to put big tech in it's place. Unfortunately I have very little confidence that it'd actually happen. Esp since the newly elected government in the US seems firmly on the side of big tech (political contributions and what not).
Failing government intervention, I fear a technological dystopia is not too far away in the future, if not already here. The other alternative ofc would be for individuals to take back control by moving out of these platforms towards their own personal websites with custom email and RSS feeds.
I love how in other threads the past 2 weeks, folks were considering the trump ban a one time, extreme thing that wouldn't happen again.
Heres the thing, what if Biden decides to strengthen consumer privacy rights? Who will lose the most out of it? The same folks who are now controlling popular narrative. "You dont want to end up like Trump, do you?" Think about that. How hard is it for them to propagate anti-Biden rhetoric now? Twitter has free reign of changing people's opinion by Twitter declaring what is true and what is disinformation.
Heres the thing, what if Biden decides to strengthen consumer privacy rights? Who will lose the most out of it? The same folks who are now controlling popular narrative. "You dont want to end up like Trump, do you?" Think about that. How hard is it for them to propagate anti-Biden rhetoric now? Twitter has free reign of changing people's opinion by Twitter declaring what is true and what is disinformation.
When they started the warning labels on tweets three or four months ago, it seemed inevitable that it would escalate in this direction. It's happening even faster than I expected, though.
This problem has been festering for four years: Twitter deliberately carved out exceptions for "world leaders" that, in practice, applied to Trump and Trump alone because they really liked having @realDonaldTrump on their platform, even though he was flagrantly breaking their rules. Trump said things on Twitter that I could not.
The best thing I could see going forward would be a legal requirement for online platforms that broadcast content to others to apply their moderation rules even-handedly. This could be effectuated by either banning ToS terms that allow arbitrary and capricious moderation; or by reducing the scope of CDA 230 immunity to prohibit carve-outs for specific individuals, in the same way that DMCA 512 immunity goes away when you start rejecting legally valid counternotices or ignoring repeat infringers (which, BTW, they also did for Trump).
The best thing I could see going forward would be a legal requirement for online platforms that broadcast content to others to apply their moderation rules even-handedly. This could be effectuated by either banning ToS terms that allow arbitrary and capricious moderation; or by reducing the scope of CDA 230 immunity to prohibit carve-outs for specific individuals, in the same way that DMCA 512 immunity goes away when you start rejecting legally valid counternotices or ignoring repeat infringers (which, BTW, they also did for Trump).
The simplest no-brainer answer to the censorship problem is for everyone to own their personal websites with custom email and RSS feeds so that friends and family can "follow" you. Nobody can censor you on your own website can they? ;)
We will continue celebrating the removal of abusive assholes from platforms which would otherwise serve to facilitate their abuse.
The duly elected government of a country is a different matter entirely.
The duly elected government of a country is a different matter entirely.
It's all Jack Dorsey's world. We just live in it.
I don't think he's really in control.
Jack's world would be decentralized Twitter, Signal and Bitcoin. That's what he's pushing for and putting resources into.
Jack's world would be decentralized Twitter, Signal and Bitcoin. That's what he's pushing for and putting resources into.
Still CEO isn’t he?
not quite true. Jack has personally overseen some of the bannings for high profile people. I think he def. played a role in trump being banned
One of the things that came out was that Trump's permaban came about as a result of demands from employees, to which Jack eventually capitulated.
Jack is still the CEO, and based on the leaked conference calls from a few days ago - he's very much in control. The guy is a complete egomaniac.
I'm open to the idea that on a personal level he'd like for Twitter as it exists today to die.
The ideal scenario would be for people to use the web as how it was originally intended: ie, everyone having custom websites (and private emails) hosted on a VPS with an RSS feed so that your friends can follow your "feed". That way you'd own your content and wouldn't have to worry about censorships/account bans etc.
Discover-ability is just about the only downside with this.