6 ms·
Your entire argument assumes that if you give a reason for bans/censorship, then people are allowed to appeal. But that's not the case - Twitter could easily wr
by deogeo 7y ago
Your entire argument assumes that if you give a reason for bans/censorship, then people are allowed to appeal. But that's not the case - Twitter could easily write "This account has been banned by order of the Chinese government/for spreading hate speech/encouraging piracy.", without the chance for appeal. They just prefer to keep their users in the dark.
- throwaway2048 7y agoIt dosen't matter if appeals are formally granted, there is still going to be a lot of informal discussion about it amongst users of the community (including banned users that are evading) that is going to generate increasing amounts of drama with time. Twitter is also never going to be honest about business case driven bans like this either, i mean do you seriously expect them to state that as the reason, even if it is their policy to do so? It would be the end of their business in China (supposing they aren't already blocked of course)
- deogeo 7y ago> there is still going to be a lot of informal discussion about it amongst users of the community (including banned users that are evading) that is going to generate increasing amounts of drama with time. It is precisely the lack of this drama, the discreet manner in which they can censor and pretend they didn't, that I object to. People should know how they're being manipulated, and then talk about it - the so-called 'drama'. But of course the censor would prefer to control the discussion without letting people know.
- throwaway2048 7y agoThe problem is that you are framing the censor as evil and the user as benign, which unfortunately isn't the norm in an online context.