22 ms·

Twitter deletes China embassy's Xinjiang 'emancipation' tweet

271 points by farseer 6y ago

iridium_core 6y ago
The tweet might be disagreeable, but it is still an important statement from a foreign Government. Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  Did you have a problem with Twitter banning ISIS propaganda pages and recruiters?
  - mc32 6y ago
    Do you have a problem with Twitter banning foreign enemies?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I think that was precisely their point?
      - mc32 6y ago
        I’m asking for a stance. I think in a democratic society we accept certain structures and laws. If the government declares a group an enemy of the state, then I think it’s fair to comply with that law. Making your own laws is not though. However, just the other day there was hooplah about GitHub not allowing access from Iran. So it’s like people want to eat their cake and also have it.
        alpaca128 6y ago
        Twitter doesn't make their own laws. They have a privately owned platform and can choose how to manage it to some degree. Just like a restaurant can kick you out if you don't act responsibly. It might be different if Twitter had a monopoly on social networks, but that's not the case.
        eightysixfour 6y ago
        I think this is actually a great point because it shows how much grey there is in something you're trying to make black and white. China is not declared a foreign enemy by law and yet the US government is actively using banning and sanctioning their otherwise legally operating companies. If they're not a foreign enemy, do they not have rights in the US? This whole thing is only shades of grey. Pretending it is black and white makes an honest conversation about it impossible.
        mc32 6y ago
        The China situation is complicated by the unfair nature of commerce with them. They can ban Twitter. Google etc. Rip off IP and so on. So while not an enemy, they do engage in anticompetitive activities and we should counter them.
        eightysixfour 6y ago
        But what if our companies are breaking Chinese law (like, not filtering searches), and that's why they've been banned?
        mc32 6y ago
        It’s true and in that case unless it breaks US law, these companies should comply with local regulation. Now that becomes complicated when you deal with authoritarian regimes whose local laws may significantly violate international law (severe human rights violations, etc). But that’s only half the deal. The other are the one sided onerous and coercive terms applied to foreign/international companies. There are two main possibilities of why Google almost pulled out completely from China. One was safeguarding IP, the other is that at the time they cared a bit more about their ideals.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        >> Do you have a problem with Twitter banning foreign enemies? > I think that was precisely their point? Is China our enemy?
  - FentanylFloyd 6y ago
    terrorism, and recruiting for terrorists is against the law
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    I have a problem with people who believe this propaganda had any net effect, except for railing up some people (which probably was the intent.)
    - simlevesque 6y ago
      How can you say that when there are hundreds of confirmed cases of ISIS radicalizing people from the internet ? Why do you have a problem believing that ?
      - himinlomax 6y ago
        Are there? Was it through Twitter? In all likelihood what you're talking about is some random semi-private forum that's going to fly under the radar anyway. And you have that big, huge number: hundreds, not mere dozens, hundreds! My oh my, that's a scary army right there. How many suicide bombers have the harassment by ISrael of the illegally occupied territories population created? And with this joke of an army is good enough to kill free speech on the net. That's almost as tragically comical as the floatsam in the Gulf of Tonkin that caused millions of deaths, but it's happening right now.
        eightysixfour 6y ago
        Yes, and yes. You can find numerous examples where Twitter in particular was the method of recruitment. Here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/northern-va-teen-admits-running-pro-islamic-state-twitter-and-helping-man-join-terrorist-group/2015/06/11/1d0cb33e-0eef-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/northern-va-teen-...
    - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
      Language is how we construct our shared reality. When you let language like this go unchallenged, it gives legitimacy to the worldview it endorses.
      - 6y ago
- mech422 6y ago
  They agreed to the TOS like everyone else... If people don't want 'big tech' to be 'Ministry of Information' stop using them as such? The Chinese government has plenty of channels they could use instead.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    What channels could they use instead?
    - loceng 6y ago
      Sorry but this is a moot point. The real question to ask is do you think it's a good idea or fair to give equal access to Americans and those in nations with free speech, when we're not allowed or able to say what we want to the people of China?
      - hungryhobo 6y ago
        yes, isn't that the whole point of free speech?
        loceng 6y ago
        It's naive if you don't consider boundaries or borders of systems and consequences of if there isn't equal reciprocity between those boundaries - there's a power dynamic imbalance that will occur, e.g. it's not an equal playing field - and so it's fair to prevent them access to your population that allows free speech. It's their decision/action that is preventing their free speech, and if they change their action to allow free speech for their population then they'd be allowed equal access to Americans et al; at the moment foreign bad actors do in fact have easy access to populations with free speech - mostly attempting to craft, influencing international narratives or instigate hate to destabilize society/democracy.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      The Chinese government has its own foreign-language websites and even multiple foreign-language newspapers.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Principled response: Twitter should ban completely ban foreign governments who don't allow free speech for their citizens.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    But banning domestic users for their free speech is ok?
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    define "free speech". Or you arr using it in the USA sense ?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    That'd ban everyone. Is there a country that permits fully free speech? Certainly not the US. What about Germany? So now you are back in the position of making a judgement call about whose laws permit free enough speech. There's no black and white line to draw here.
    - nabla9 6y ago
      There is clearly visible line to be drawn. Difference in free speech between countries is not some linear continuum that gets gradually fuzzier when you get closer to Russia, Saudi Arabia and China. It varies a little, countries have idiosyncrasies, then there is big discontinuity.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Yeah? In Denmark you can be fined for language that is insulting or degrading. Germany bans political parties. In Italy speech against the honor and prestige of the president is forbidden. South Korea strictly limits speech around elections. In Australia there is no constitutional protection of free speech and media (particularly depicting violence) is regularly censored. Now let's start going through the other countries and tell me how this isn't a spectrum. Where does Malaysia fall on your bright line? Turkey? The Philippines? Iran? Thailand? Belarus? Brazil? Egypt? Eritrea? I guarantee you that attempting to draw a bright line will absolutely run into fuzzy edges and judgement calls.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  The problem is that there's no middleground. Either you don't play the "ministry of information" role and have to live with the fact that eventually your platform will turn into a more chaotic 4chan, or you start removing particularly excessive content at which point you crossed the only line that can be clearly defined. This is one of the reasons I think old-school forums are superior in terms of "web hygiene". You have a group of moderators, each responsible for a clearly defined section and a userbase small enough so rules are still enforceable. And the people running it are not an untouchable megacorporation.
  - fvdessen 6y ago
    Since this tweet comes from the chinese embassy of the USA, it seems to me that this is diplomatic matters and should be handled by the government. For example the USA government could apply diplomatic sanctions to the embassy if they do not delete the tweet. I find it very strange that the twitter moderation team is acting in stead of the foreign affairs department.
    - emptyparadise 6y ago
      If we're going to treat Twitter like a public utility, let's just nationalize it and get rid of the oligopoly. Although I'd rather have it broken apart into a bunch of federated websites with a hard requirement to never break federation (GTalk/XMPP style) with the rest of the open web.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      Twitter is not an arm of the US government. It's like saying I don't have the right to choose what is published in my newsletter [0]. [0] I don't actually have a newsletter.
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      If China sent it as a statement to every newspaper and television channel in the US, do you think they should be required to run it as a story?
- plasticxme 6y ago
  Twitter is a private sector business in the US with terms that include reserving the right to remove any content for any reason. They have every right to. If you don’t agree with it, for moral reasons or otherwise, you’re free to provide your own service.
  - andrewclunn 6y ago
    Do you people just copy paste this exact comment, and replace "Twitter" with whatever social network, ISP, payment processor in question exists? Did you oppose the Civil Rights Act, which forced restaurants for example to serve blacks? Do you think there's anyone here who isn't aware that Twitter is a private company? You add nothing to the conversation when you do this, you just reiterate a neo-liberal talking point that even most self identifying libertarians disagree with now.
  - purplecats 6y ago
    okay mr oligopolist
  - brighton36 6y ago
    Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Parler tried to start their own service and look what is happening to them.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Parler would be fine if its members didn't consistently incite violence.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        Are there a larger percentage of violent comments on Parler than Facebook or Twitter? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
- farseer 6y ago
  The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women and is presenting the results as "emancipation". This isn't disagreeable, its monsterous and diabolical. The same limits that apply to serial killers presenting their handiwork on twitter apply here as well.
  - wazoox 6y ago
    > The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women Do you have the slightest evidence for this? Census data shows that Uighur population doubled in the past 30 years, because this population hasn't been subjected to the "one child policy" among other things. This is a war of propaganda, from both side. None is particularly more believable than the other. proceed with caution.
    - notadog 6y ago
      https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
      - Noumenon72 6y ago
        I was interested to learn that this policy only dates back to 2014, rather than being some longtime oppression. I had thought it was more similar to America's relationship with the Native Americans. > For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world, with Uighurs and others getting more points on college entrance exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions. Under China’s now-abandoned ‘one child’ policy, the authorities had long encouraged, often forced, contraceptives, sterilization and abortion on Han Chinese. But minorities were allowed two children — three if they came from the countryside. Anyway, a world where China's tweet is up and this link is the first reply to it strikes me as far better, in discourse and the availability of truth, then a world where I know I'm only allowed to read this article and China cannot defend themselves.
    - farseer 6y ago
      This is a good source that summarizes some of the primary accounts: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... I am afraid this isn't propaganda unlike the above tweet.
- IkmoIkmo 6y ago
  They're not, but they can be ministry of their terms and conditions, which don't allow blatant propaganda posts (regardless of whether it's from a citizen or from a government representative) that claim victims of forced sterilisation are simply emancipating and choosing to have fewer children as an explanation for dropping birth rates. China is free to publish its nonsense on its own channels. why should Twitter agree to be a propaganda platform for China? Twitter can't police every post, but if a post gets a million views and is a blatant lie about human rights abuses, it's a bit silly to argue they should let that slide because it's an 'important statement from a foreign government'. If the NYT tweets about this statement, and attaches the proper context based on generally accepted standards of proper journalism, it wouldn't have been an issue. You can talk about things without being a propaganda piece. Hitler advertising in the NYT in the WW2 shouldn't be accepted. Journalists writing about something Hitler said and putting it in the context (i.e., mentioning the human rights abuses), is fine. Apologies for the obligatory nazi reference but it makes explaining the principe so much easier, even if China isn't as bad.
  - gxnxcxcx 6y ago
    The obligation to apologize for nazi references in one's rhetoric went out the window the moment actual nazis started getting mainstreamed into politics again.
- refurb 6y ago
  This is what I said a year ago. You can’t moderate speech and come out the other side looking like a hero. You will only come be hated by everyone.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Better to be hated by everyone than counted among the nazis. You can moderate speech, but the first step is to stop caring about the opinions of the chattering classes such as is found on HN (or on Twitter for that matter.)
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      Indeed. The Catholic Church successfully moderated speech for centuries for the completely benevolent cause of saving people's souls from the eternity of hell fire which awaited them if they were to fall victim to misinformation
- turbonoobie 6y ago
  I agree, but this needs to be sorted with regulation, and not blaming Twitter for doing bad when they're able to do what they want on their platform.
- emptyparadise 6y ago
  Instead of policing what Twitter can and can't allow on its website, we should look at the root of the issue: the global public square should not be controlled by a single corporation.
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    The root of the issue is there should be no single global public square
    - emptyparadise 6y ago
      Exactly! Decentralization is the only viable long term solution here.
  - brown9-2 6y ago
    which single company controls the global public square?
- pjc50 6y ago
  The problem with this statement is that there's a literal "ministry of information" involved, in the Orwellian sense of a controlling censor, and it's the Chinese government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Industry_and_Information_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Industry_and_Infor...
  - altfredd 6y ago
    Orwell's book actually described 3 super-states, all of which share same ideology and, presumably, have their own "ministries of truth".
- dna_polymerase 6y ago
  It's not Twitter's fault that they are your only source of information. You can go elsewhere, they are a private company and owe you jack-shit.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    That's not completely true. We (society) allow these corporations to exist and make money off of us, so there's a worthwhile discussion to have about what should be done about corporations that don't hold our values.
- consumer451 6y ago
  > Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'. Twitter did not prevent them from stating anything. Twitter employees simply decided they want to have no part in this. Are you saying they should be forced to publish this tweet? The logic here escapes me.
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    They did not publish the tweet. They provided the tools for the tweet to be published. There is a distinction, as they had no hand in the act of creating the tweet itself.
    - consumer451 6y ago
      > There is a distinction It is a distinction with no real meaning to me, in this case. If I was an employee at Twitter working to expand the reach of my platform, and the platform was being used to brag about genocide, then I would feel partly responsible for normalizing that behavior.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        Then I encourage you to continue to develop distinctions and nuance, because this cuts many ways.
        consumer451 6y ago
        Thank you, I will.
- perennate 6y ago
  A ministry of information would jail and possibly harvest the organs of those sending the information. As far as I know, Twitter has not arrested and harvested the organs of anyone working in the embassy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- undersuit 6y ago
  Yes they do! https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos >By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).
- nitwit005 6y ago
  The newspapers and TV news stations also won't publish the most offensive statements from foreign leaders (or even local ones) either. You could possibly argue that things like email or telephones won't censor people, but if foreign governments tried regularly calling us to send propaganda, they'd get blocked.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I agree. I'd rather Twitter ban people then just arbitrarily remove random tweets. It's not like the tweets aren't still out there somewhere. They just have decided they don't want the average person to be able to see them.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  They have every right because they are a private corporation. Joke's on China if they think they can post freely without being questioned. There are not enough people holding the Chinese government's nose to the shit they're dropping.
- 8note 6y ago
  Twitter is definitionally a ministry of truth. They can show every tweet to everyone, so they have to pick and choose who sees what tweets. Any sorting or recommendation algorithm makes a choice about what ideas should be signal boosted and which ones should be hidden. You visit twitter to see twitter's take on what's important
throwaway4good 6y ago
I guess it will make Trump feel a bit better ...
runawaybottle 6y ago
I suppose Twitter will learn what real censorship is from the o.g CCP very soon.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter > Twitter is blocked in China > According to the official verdicts as of 2020, hundreds Chinese were sentenced to prison due to their tweeting, retweeting and liking on twitter. I don't think they'll be all that surprised.
chloerei 6y ago
Make the charges and then not allow the defendant to speak.
- farseer 6y ago
  Chinese are not allowed to use twitter thanks to the CCP. That is the twisted irony here.
rainworld 6y ago
Oh no, they said the quiet part out loud. Newsflash, the entire global west is sub-replacement and mostly has been for decades. South Korea just hit a stunning, absolutely suicidal TFR of 0.85. And it's only going to get worse.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  So what's going to happen to those nations in the long term? Are they just going to slowly die off until they get replaced by immigrants? Suggesting this possibility somehow got me banned in several subreddits. There's something going on here.
  - brighton36 6y ago
    If it's not superficial, it's offensive. Only prestigious people are licensed to have an opinion that's not superficial.
  - rainworld 6y ago
    The future belongs to those who show up. Yes, there's something going on and you are not supposed to talk about it in polite society—or anywhere at this point.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    There's no long-term plan. Even the immigrant plan sucks, because there are very few countries worldwide which aren't on a trajectory to reach replacement TFR within a decade.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  > absolutely suicidal TFR of 0.85 The implications of high global population are also (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) "suicidal." With the exception of figuring out how to care for elderly with a declining population, there are many advantages to a declining population. Specifically, the planet only has so many natural resources. We can only pollute so much. If we had significantly less people, things like limited resources and pollution wouldn't be that big of a deal.
mc32 6y ago
They probably didn’t set out to do this. To become the Ministry of Truth, but this is where they are now. They’ve become Pravda. They’ve become CCTV. The irony is probably lost on them. This is so sad. Welcome home ‘Granma’.
- chrononaut 6y ago
  This seems to be an overreaction, particularly when you have the option not to use it. Just like the majority (of Americans) choose not to use other "free speech" platforms in part because of the disinformation, propaganda, and bots roam free.
  - naeemtee 6y ago
    I'm impressed people keep making the "option not to use it" argument. Our lines of communication are monopolized. "Just don't use Facebook/Twitter/Amazon" is an irrelevant argument since there are no alternatives.
    - andrewclunn 6y ago
      Sure there are. You can use Parler... oh wait they were just banned by Google, Apple, and Amazon. I'm sure this isn't any kind of collusion though. Free Market, yeah!
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      You can absolutely love comfortably and normally in the US without Facebook or Twitter. It's more challenging to avoid Amazon entirely, but you can easily avoid supporting them directly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrononaut 6y ago
      I understand the practical difficulty of another platform being created and being successful, and thus the general recommendation of "not using the platform" is futile. However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.
claydavisss 6y ago
Awesome! Locking an entire generation into an echo chamber makes it so much easier to get away with things in real life!
m3kw9 6y ago
People here complaint about moderation is being moderated here, and they are OK with it. OK meaning they are not actively pushing back on such moderations.
- julienreszka 6y ago
  I don't think that the reality. You can check yourself here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Dang%20abuse&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Now do the WHO!
btown 6y ago
Forced sterilization is violence, and the glorification of it by any actor is glorification of violence. Certainly this highlights the power that a platform like Twitter has to silence people, but this specific deletion is not inconsistent with Twitter's policies, and it is not itself indicative of further movement down a slippery slope. But it does make it even more important for journalists to have systematic ways of holding Twitter to account should it overstep in the future.
- beaunative 6y ago
  Is it a violence when a woman's sole purpose is produce babies for her husband? Is it so when it's done in the name of social norms and cultural convention?
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  The post by the Chinese embassy is not advocating for forced sterilization. Rather, it is disputing the claim that forced sterilization is happening and saying the decline in birth rate is due to choice by the Uyghur women. Twitter's decision therefore takes a stand on what the "truth" is.
  - OwlsParlay 6y ago
    It's the inevitable consequence of policing Trump's tweets. Either you police everything, or you're a hypocrite. This is not intended to judge how true the original article by the way, for future downvoters.
    - Udik 6y ago
      But of course they won't police everything, just what doesn't put them in trouble if they do so. Good luck with deleting a tweet from Netanyahu praising how ethical is the Israeli army.
  - perennate 6y ago
    That forced sterilization is happening is fact. Twitter isn't taking a "stand" on what the truth is (it is telling that you put truth in quotes). Twitter is simply deleting tweets that spread misinformation, whether the misinformation is about US election claims or pretending that there isn't a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Actions such as this that deter the spread of fake news on social media platforms are needed because bot accounts that rapidly repeat false statements are possible on the Internet.
dustinmoris 6y ago
I am astonished by how many people claim that China has forcibly steralised women. It might very well be, but I have not seen any evidence yet. Don't we learn anything from our past mistakes? Still waiting for anyone to find mass destruction weapons in Iran. Standing up for human rights is great, but there is a fine line between being a good activist and being ignorant, uninformed and imperialist. A private US company cannot decide for the rest of the world if China has violated humans rights if there is no evidence for it.
- farseer 6y ago
  https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... There are primary sources available that are the basis of this report.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I am astonished by how many people claim that China has forcibly steralised women. It might very well be, but I have not seen any evidence yet. While yes, it's true it's very difficult to get solid data out of remote and tightly-locked-down regions of totalitarian states... Let's be honest: if you wanted to Tweet something that convinced the world you were sterilizing Uighurs, this is what you would Tweet. "Pay no attention to that marked change in birth rate, that's just because our women are so happy now!" Yikes.
  - dustinmoris 6y ago
    If I was an evil authoritarian leader secretly steralising women then I'd not tweet anything and tell all my other minions to not tweet anything that would raise questions. But irrespective of what I would do myself, this tweet does neither prove for or against such actions and therefore it's not Twitter's role to silence it. Let our governments and independent investigative journalists do their work and give us a counter view if they disagree with that tweet. There was no need for Twitter to get involved. I think they did that to balance their editorial decision on Trump and to please both, the democratic party as well as the republican because social media companies fear that new legislation could harm them and so they try to appeal to everyone now.
justinzollars 6y ago
So what. One has more political freedom using Chinese social apps than one has using American social apps.
beerandt 6y ago
>Under current rules, couples in China are allowed to have up to two children, with couples in some rural areas allowed up to three. Aren't recognized "ethnic minorites" (or however they phrase the term) exempt from this law? Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. At a minimum, I thought the limit was higher (than the historic limits for not-minority families). Can anyone confirm or point to authoritative info in english?
diebeforei485 6y ago
Banning Trump means they also have to take action against things like this.
f6v 6y ago
> Beijing is alleged The essence of tech giants: censorship based on allegations.
canada2020 6y ago
Twitter sits at the very top of a stack of technologies. Clearly the internet providers shouldn’t ban specific content, AWS should not either. Since Twitter is the most user facing, does that give it more responsibility to regulate the actual content on its platform? If not Twitter, who (if anyone) has the right to regulate content on the internet?
- undersuit 6y ago
  >Clearly Why?
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do. There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c. https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ (fr) (Some of this has now been implemented in the EU.)
- splaytreemap 6y ago
  Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users. Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used? Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.
cmrdporcupine 6y ago
Reading through all of these twitter issues lately I still scratch my head how we got to a place where a medium like Twitter, which I've always found to favour the trite and flippant, has become some sort of semi-official mouthpiece for governments and politicians.
- derwiki 6y ago
  It’s faster than traditional means and they can craft the narrative completely (unlike newspapers, TV news)
  - thwarted 6y ago
    It would be just as fast to give high level officials a textbox and a submit button that adds content to a web page.
    - travisjungroth 6y ago
      This is what makes me roll my eyes at anyone who says getting kicked of Twitter is being “silenced”. Make a web page and you have broader and more direct reach than almost anyone on Earth 20 years ago.
      - acct776 6y ago
        But not today.
        bigwavedave 6y ago
        > But not today. Exactly. That was kind of like telling a content creator to build a web site and post videos there after getting kicked off YouTube. Sure, only a fraction of their fanbase will start using their site to consume their content, but hey, at least they have a broader reach than almost anyone on Earth had 20 years ago.
        6y ago
jijji 6y ago
they seem to more of a publisher/editor of content than a passive platform allowing its users freedom to express their opinions.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
I wonder if Twitter will also remove the feeds from the presidents of Iran, Russia, and NK if they want to quell calls to violence.
- kitotik 6y ago
  Do you have any citations you can share?
  - gurkendoktor 6y ago
    Excuse the source, but this article has a bit of context about Khameini's tweets and the repeated call for their deletion: https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-... This tweet is particularly famous: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864 Honestly I don't think Twitter's removal of the Xinjiang tweet had anything to do with foreign policy at all, it just made feminism look bad, which does actually crush birth rates (even if that's not what happened in Xinjiang). Right-wing Twitter was exploiting the CCP tweet for this alone.
    - kitotik 6y ago
      That tweet seemed more like espousing a belief or opinion than a direct call to action of any sort.
      - gurkendoktor 6y ago
        From his other tweets it looks like a call to action to me, although he has clarified that it's not a call for a massacre. This tweet seems to sum it up: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 I have no opinion on or knowledge about the situation in the Middle East, but I found these tweets interesting in terms of what is allowed on Twitter.
- f311a 6y ago
h_anna_h 6y ago
Isn't twitter banned in china? I think it would be fair that since chinese "peasants" can't use it then the chinese "elite", companies, and government should not be able to either. I for one would support twitter banning them, let them taste their own medicine.
- La1n 6y ago
  Sure, but then ban their account and all ips. Not just tweets that you don't think line up with US version of the truth.
- lyrachord 6y ago
  U r just a non-human typpinger. China, Chinese! Someone who is sane is able to do the right typing.
- shalmanese 6y ago
  Twitter isn't "banned" in China in the way Westerners conventionally understand the term. Twitter IPs are blocked as a matter of policy by the GFW. Various institutions inside of China have the IP exception rules like universities and government offices. If you have an officially sanctioned reason to use Twitter like buying ads on there for Western export products, you can apply for an official VPN that gives you legal access to Twitter. Twitter has a sales office in Beijing that helps with stuff like this. Selling unsanctioned VPN services is a crime in China but using an unsanctioned VPN is in a legal gray area but largely tolerated so long as you don't draw attention to yourself. Twitter itself has estimated that it had 10M MAU inside of China as of 2016.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    You just confirmed that Twitter is in fact banned in China in the way that I understand the term.
  - DataGata 6y ago
    This was a useful comment, assuming it is true, and even though it is a "debate on definitions" quibble.
redflame8 6y ago
I’m over 18, can I turn safe-search off?
jtdev 6y ago
When will our leaders actually condemn China (not some toothless virtue signaling) and stop the flow of money from American consumers to the CCP? Vote with your wallet, stop buying Chinese products. Stop supporting this clearly evil regime.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Not buying chinese products harms chinese producers. It won't make a dent to the billionaire politicians that decide and execute on concentration camps.
  - jtdev 6y ago
    That’s entirely false. Less sales from Chinese producers to the U.S. without question weakens the CCP. Would we have been so flippant about buying products from the third reich???
    - conanbatt 6y ago
      Cubans are not faring better because there are sactions that prohibit them from gaining access to basic international services, many of which are free. The pressure has to be applied to the people in charge, to their wealth, to their families abroad, etc. Hitting the guy manufacturing iphones is not an effective or morally reasonable tactic.
      - jtdev 6y ago
        The wealth and power of the CCP is directly tied to the success of Chinese business internationally (much like the Cuban Communist regime). Their is no private enterprise in China; the CCP quite literally owns all means of production in China. I’ll politely refuse your invited to support the CCP (oppressors of the Chinese people) by proxy so as to not upset the people of China - you see how your logic is circular here...?
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I can’t wait until Twitter has exactly two users after they have banned and kicked out everyone. Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde can tweet their views to the world about how TWTR thinks we should live our lives.
julienreszka 6y ago
Why are they censoring this. We need to know what's happening there! Stop hiding the reality of what they stand for!!!
cptnapalm 6y ago
Neither in the article nor the comments: Twitter previously issued a statement saying that this did not violate their policy. Twitter also justified allowing the calls for genocide by the Ayatollah on their platform. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-... https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/319713/twitter-official-says-ayatollah-khameneis-tweets-are-permissible-because-theyre-foreign-policy-saber-rattling/ https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/319713/twitter-offi...
- ZoomerCretin 6y ago
  I can't understand why this newspaper would make such an outrageous claim and cite tweets which very clearly disprove the point just made. Am I missing something, or does the Ayatollah not call for genocide in those tweets? To those downvoting, I urge you to read the tweets linked. If I am wrong, simply quote the portion of these tweets which specifically makes a call for genocide and I will be delighted to be proven wrong.
  - hu3 6y ago
    Seems pretty clear to me: "Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei's answer to 9 key questions." https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248
    - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
      "What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini?" "The only means of bringing Israeli crimes to an end is the elimination of this *regime*. And of course the elimination of Israel *does not mean the massacre* of the Jewish people in this region. The Islamic Republic proposed a practical & logical mechanism for this to international communities." I have a hard time understanding why so many people equate Israel with Israelis. Many people are opposing the Chinese government. Do you also equate their calls to end China's government with a call to genocide against all Chinese?
mantap 6y ago
Twitter has become a place for extremism. Once politicians figured out that they can say anything they want on Twitter, and that their supporters or sock puppets will spread it around like it's the best thing ever, it encourages extremism. People talk about free speech, but free speech has never meant freedom from moderators. Twitter is well within their rights to place limits on allowable content, just as there are limits to allowable content on HN. The Chinese embassy is well within their rights to make these comments on their own website.
- awb 6y ago
  This is exactly why WordPress became so popular. You own and control your own content. When you choose to create or consume content on a 3rd party platform, you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions, which often includes some scenarios where they can block or censor your content or access. Complaining about that after the fact is pretty silly. The “I’m leaving X and moving to Y” is a temporary solution. Substack, Parler, Spotify, etc. aren’t any better in the long run, they’re just newer and offer a temporary reprieve. You’ve still hitched yourself to a wagon and are along for the ride. Maybe that ride is better for you, but don’t think for a minute that you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re not truly free until you own the distribution network. Or an owner-less blockchain publishing network might eventually work as well.
- iso8859-1 6y ago
  > The Chinese embassy is well within their rights to make these comments on their own website. Why? It is on the dot-org TLD, doesn't it have to abide by the dot-org rules? According to this article[0], specific threats of violence are not allowed. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.ht...
  - pas 6y ago
    So is .org still managed by PIR? Is there a list of domains they suspended because its content (or its user's purpose) was in conflict with their rules?
  - 6y ago
hker 6y ago
Earlier Twitter labeled Trump’s more questionable tweets, instead of outright deleting them. I wonder if Twitter could do the same here. Although I disagree with this tweet of China embassy, I want it to be shown to the world for others to judge. If nothing else, we can learn how frequently the China embassy tweets questionably. Labeling it seems right.
- jtdev 6y ago
  It would seem that Twitter is fearful of the CCP, and simply removed the tweet rather than engage with the CCP in a more confrontational way like labeling their tweets.
throwaway4good 6y ago
The full tweet was as follows: "Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent."
justicezyx 6y ago
Forced birth quota have already prevented 400mm births over it's cause [1]. How many lives that actually translate into is outside of my knowledge scope. Chinese government should receive much bigger and larger scale criticisms. To prevent them applying the policy to other ethnicity groups. But given the geographical situation, I doubt anyone is going to seriously challenge China. No one did that when China was weaker and more cooperative, no one can do that when China becomes strong and assertive. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34666440 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34666440
29athrowaway 6y ago
What China is doing (eugenics) is clearly immoral, and should be condemned. What fewer people is aware of is that the US has a prominent historic role when it comes to the "development" of eugenics. Let's take this horrible book, for example... "The blood of the nation: A study of the decay of the races through the survival of the unfit": https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/... This book inspired many eugenics programs that took place in the 20th century, including the ones in Nazi Germany. Who wrote this? No other than the founding president of Stanford University, David Starr Jordan. From California. You would expect Americans at the time to be horrified by this book? Not precisely. He received honorary degrees by multiple American universities, and he has a plethora of things named in his honor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starr_Jordan#Monuments_and_memorials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starr_Jordan#Monuments_a... And we could be talking about this all day. The US is also responsible for the mass sterilization of Latinas, with a special emphasis in Puerto Rico. By 1965, 34% of Puerto Rican women aged 20–49 had been sterilized.
Udik 6y ago
Twitter spokesman on the same tweet Thursday 7: "This Tweet is not in violation of our policies", after being asked about it by an Ars Technica journalist. Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-...
lightgreen 6y ago
Slightly different version is still there: https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347224755485749249 https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/134722475548574924...
thesagan 6y ago
Seems like we’re removing lanes from the “information highway.” A once optimistic future to waste. Like radio and tv. Less participation is better now; as in the famous statement of an “excess of democracy.” How quick we change our values.
curt15 6y ago
Since Twitter is blocked in China, what does Twitter have to gain by letting CCP officials post?
lanevorockz 6y ago
Surprising, finally Twitter bans a truly genocidal tweet instead of just banning politics they disagree with.
retox 6y ago
A tweet that has not been deleted since being posted in February 2019; >"Down with USA" means down with @realDonaldTrump , @AmbJohnBolton and @SecPompeo . It means death to the American politicians currently in power. It means death to the few people running that country; we have nothing against the American nation. https://archive.is/LgMfJ https://archive.is/LgMfJ https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1093791374204420097 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1093791374204420097
archibaldJ 6y ago
Fully justifiable. And a highly sensible move. I just bought some $TWTR cuz of this = ) (As a Chinese I'm always glad to see an American company doing what is right without giving a F how the CCP would take it.)

271 points by farseer 6y ago

The tweet might be disagreeable, but it is still an important statement from a foreign Government. Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'.

eightysixfour 6y ago
Did you have a problem with Twitter banning ISIS propaganda pages and recruiters?
- mc32 6y ago
  Do you have a problem with Twitter banning foreign enemies?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I think that was precisely their point?
    - mc32 6y ago
      I’m asking for a stance. I think in a democratic society we accept certain structures and laws. If the government declares a group an enemy of the state, then I think it’s fair to comply with that law. Making your own laws is not though. However, just the other day there was hooplah about GitHub not allowing access from Iran. So it’s like people want to eat their cake and also have it.
      - alpaca128 6y ago
        Twitter doesn't make their own laws. They have a privately owned platform and can choose how to manage it to some degree. Just like a restaurant can kick you out if you don't act responsibly. It might be different if Twitter had a monopoly on social networks, but that's not the case.
      - eightysixfour 6y ago
        I think this is actually a great point because it shows how much grey there is in something you're trying to make black and white. China is not declared a foreign enemy by law and yet the US government is actively using banning and sanctioning their otherwise legally operating companies. If they're not a foreign enemy, do they not have rights in the US? This whole thing is only shades of grey. Pretending it is black and white makes an honest conversation about it impossible.
        mc32 6y ago
        The China situation is complicated by the unfair nature of commerce with them. They can ban Twitter. Google etc. Rip off IP and so on. So while not an enemy, they do engage in anticompetitive activities and we should counter them.
        eightysixfour 6y ago
        But what if our companies are breaking Chinese law (like, not filtering searches), and that's why they've been banned?
        mc32 6y ago
        It’s true and in that case unless it breaks US law, these companies should comply with local regulation. Now that becomes complicated when you deal with authoritarian regimes whose local laws may significantly violate international law (severe human rights violations, etc). But that’s only half the deal. The other are the one sided onerous and coercive terms applied to foreign/international companies. There are two main possibilities of why Google almost pulled out completely from China. One was safeguarding IP, the other is that at the time they cared a bit more about their ideals.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      >> Do you have a problem with Twitter banning foreign enemies? > I think that was precisely their point? Is China our enemy?
- FentanylFloyd 6y ago
  terrorism, and recruiting for terrorists is against the law
- himinlomax 6y ago
  I have a problem with people who believe this propaganda had any net effect, except for railing up some people (which probably was the intent.)
  - simlevesque 6y ago
    How can you say that when there are hundreds of confirmed cases of ISIS radicalizing people from the internet ? Why do you have a problem believing that ?
    - himinlomax 6y ago
      Are there? Was it through Twitter? In all likelihood what you're talking about is some random semi-private forum that's going to fly under the radar anyway. And you have that big, huge number: hundreds, not mere dozens, hundreds! My oh my, that's a scary army right there. How many suicide bombers have the harassment by ISrael of the illegally occupied territories population created? And with this joke of an army is good enough to kill free speech on the net. That's almost as tragically comical as the floatsam in the Gulf of Tonkin that caused millions of deaths, but it's happening right now.
      - eightysixfour 6y ago
        Yes, and yes. You can find numerous examples where Twitter in particular was the method of recruitment. Here is one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/northern-va-teen-admits-running-pro-islamic-state-twitter-and-helping-man-join-terrorist-group/2015/06/11/1d0cb33e-0eef-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/northern-va-teen-...
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    Language is how we construct our shared reality. When you let language like this go unchallenged, it gives legitimacy to the worldview it endorses.
    - 6y ago
mech422 6y ago
They agreed to the TOS like everyone else... If people don't want 'big tech' to be 'Ministry of Information' stop using them as such? The Chinese government has plenty of channels they could use instead.
- leereeves 6y ago
  What channels could they use instead?
  - loceng 6y ago
    Sorry but this is a moot point. The real question to ask is do you think it's a good idea or fair to give equal access to Americans and those in nations with free speech, when we're not allowed or able to say what we want to the people of China?
    - hungryhobo 6y ago
      yes, isn't that the whole point of free speech?
      - loceng 6y ago
        It's naive if you don't consider boundaries or borders of systems and consequences of if there isn't equal reciprocity between those boundaries - there's a power dynamic imbalance that will occur, e.g. it's not an equal playing field - and so it's fair to prevent them access to your population that allows free speech. It's their decision/action that is preventing their free speech, and if they change their action to allow free speech for their population then they'd be allowed equal access to Americans et al; at the moment foreign bad actors do in fact have easy access to populations with free speech - mostly attempting to craft, influencing international narratives or instigate hate to destabilize society/democracy.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    The Chinese government has its own foreign-language websites and even multiple foreign-language newspapers.
nabla9 6y ago
Principled response: Twitter should ban completely ban foreign governments who don't allow free speech for their citizens.
- eplanit 6y ago
  But banning domestic users for their free speech is ok?
- YarickR2 6y ago
  define "free speech". Or you arr using it in the USA sense ?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  That'd ban everyone. Is there a country that permits fully free speech? Certainly not the US. What about Germany? So now you are back in the position of making a judgement call about whose laws permit free enough speech. There's no black and white line to draw here.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    There is clearly visible line to be drawn. Difference in free speech between countries is not some linear continuum that gets gradually fuzzier when you get closer to Russia, Saudi Arabia and China. It varies a little, countries have idiosyncrasies, then there is big discontinuity.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Yeah? In Denmark you can be fined for language that is insulting or degrading. Germany bans political parties. In Italy speech against the honor and prestige of the president is forbidden. South Korea strictly limits speech around elections. In Australia there is no constitutional protection of free speech and media (particularly depicting violence) is regularly censored. Now let's start going through the other countries and tell me how this isn't a spectrum. Where does Malaysia fall on your bright line? Turkey? The Philippines? Iran? Thailand? Belarus? Brazil? Egypt? Eritrea? I guarantee you that attempting to draw a bright line will absolutely run into fuzzy edges and judgement calls.
alpaca128 6y ago
The problem is that there's no middleground. Either you don't play the "ministry of information" role and have to live with the fact that eventually your platform will turn into a more chaotic 4chan, or you start removing particularly excessive content at which point you crossed the only line that can be clearly defined. This is one of the reasons I think old-school forums are superior in terms of "web hygiene". You have a group of moderators, each responsible for a clearly defined section and a userbase small enough so rules are still enforceable. And the people running it are not an untouchable megacorporation.
- fvdessen 6y ago
  Since this tweet comes from the chinese embassy of the USA, it seems to me that this is diplomatic matters and should be handled by the government. For example the USA government could apply diplomatic sanctions to the embassy if they do not delete the tweet. I find it very strange that the twitter moderation team is acting in stead of the foreign affairs department.
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    If we're going to treat Twitter like a public utility, let's just nationalize it and get rid of the oligopoly. Although I'd rather have it broken apart into a bunch of federated websites with a hard requirement to never break federation (GTalk/XMPP style) with the rest of the open web.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Twitter is not an arm of the US government. It's like saying I don't have the right to choose what is published in my newsletter [0]. [0] I don't actually have a newsletter.
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    If China sent it as a statement to every newspaper and television channel in the US, do you think they should be required to run it as a story?
plasticxme 6y ago
Twitter is a private sector business in the US with terms that include reserving the right to remove any content for any reason. They have every right to. If you don’t agree with it, for moral reasons or otherwise, you’re free to provide your own service.
- andrewclunn 6y ago
  Do you people just copy paste this exact comment, and replace "Twitter" with whatever social network, ISP, payment processor in question exists? Did you oppose the Civil Rights Act, which forced restaurants for example to serve blacks? Do you think there's anyone here who isn't aware that Twitter is a private company? You add nothing to the conversation when you do this, you just reiterate a neo-liberal talking point that even most self identifying libertarians disagree with now.
- purplecats 6y ago
  okay mr oligopolist
- brighton36 6y ago
  Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Parler tried to start their own service and look what is happening to them.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Parler would be fine if its members didn't consistently incite violence.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      Are there a larger percentage of violent comments on Parler than Facebook or Twitter? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
farseer 6y ago
The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women and is presenting the results as "emancipation". This isn't disagreeable, its monsterous and diabolical. The same limits that apply to serial killers presenting their handiwork on twitter apply here as well.
- wazoox 6y ago
  > The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women Do you have the slightest evidence for this? Census data shows that Uighur population doubled in the past 30 years, because this population hasn't been subjected to the "one child policy" among other things. This is a war of propaganda, from both side. None is particularly more believable than the other. proceed with caution.
  - notadog 6y ago
    https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
    - Noumenon72 6y ago
      I was interested to learn that this policy only dates back to 2014, rather than being some longtime oppression. I had thought it was more similar to America's relationship with the Native Americans. > For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world, with Uighurs and others getting more points on college entrance exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions. Under China’s now-abandoned ‘one child’ policy, the authorities had long encouraged, often forced, contraceptives, sterilization and abortion on Han Chinese. But minorities were allowed two children — three if they came from the countryside. Anyway, a world where China's tweet is up and this link is the first reply to it strikes me as far better, in discourse and the availability of truth, then a world where I know I'm only allowed to read this article and China cannot defend themselves.
  - farseer 6y ago
    This is a good source that summarizes some of the primary accounts: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... I am afraid this isn't propaganda unlike the above tweet.
IkmoIkmo 6y ago
They're not, but they can be ministry of their terms and conditions, which don't allow blatant propaganda posts (regardless of whether it's from a citizen or from a government representative) that claim victims of forced sterilisation are simply emancipating and choosing to have fewer children as an explanation for dropping birth rates. China is free to publish its nonsense on its own channels. why should Twitter agree to be a propaganda platform for China? Twitter can't police every post, but if a post gets a million views and is a blatant lie about human rights abuses, it's a bit silly to argue they should let that slide because it's an 'important statement from a foreign government'. If the NYT tweets about this statement, and attaches the proper context based on generally accepted standards of proper journalism, it wouldn't have been an issue. You can talk about things without being a propaganda piece. Hitler advertising in the NYT in the WW2 shouldn't be accepted. Journalists writing about something Hitler said and putting it in the context (i.e., mentioning the human rights abuses), is fine. Apologies for the obligatory nazi reference but it makes explaining the principe so much easier, even if China isn't as bad.
- gxnxcxcx 6y ago
  The obligation to apologize for nazi references in one's rhetoric went out the window the moment actual nazis started getting mainstreamed into politics again.
refurb 6y ago
This is what I said a year ago. You can’t moderate speech and come out the other side looking like a hero. You will only come be hated by everyone.
- evgen 6y ago
  Better to be hated by everyone than counted among the nazis. You can moderate speech, but the first step is to stop caring about the opinions of the chattering classes such as is found on HN (or on Twitter for that matter.)
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Indeed. The Catholic Church successfully moderated speech for centuries for the completely benevolent cause of saving people's souls from the eternity of hell fire which awaited them if they were to fall victim to misinformation
turbonoobie 6y ago
I agree, but this needs to be sorted with regulation, and not blaming Twitter for doing bad when they're able to do what they want on their platform.
emptyparadise 6y ago
Instead of policing what Twitter can and can't allow on its website, we should look at the root of the issue: the global public square should not be controlled by a single corporation.
- YarickR2 6y ago
  The root of the issue is there should be no single global public square
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    Exactly! Decentralization is the only viable long term solution here.
- brown9-2 6y ago
  which single company controls the global public square?
pjc50 6y ago
The problem with this statement is that there's a literal "ministry of information" involved, in the Orwellian sense of a controlling censor, and it's the Chinese government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Industry_and_Information_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Industry_and_Infor...
- altfredd 6y ago
  Orwell's book actually described 3 super-states, all of which share same ideology and, presumably, have their own "ministries of truth".
dna_polymerase 6y ago
It's not Twitter's fault that they are your only source of information. You can go elsewhere, they are a private company and owe you jack-shit.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  That's not completely true. We (society) allow these corporations to exist and make money off of us, so there's a worthwhile discussion to have about what should be done about corporations that don't hold our values.
consumer451 6y ago
> Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'. Twitter did not prevent them from stating anything. Twitter employees simply decided they want to have no part in this. Are you saying they should be forced to publish this tweet? The logic here escapes me.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  They did not publish the tweet. They provided the tools for the tweet to be published. There is a distinction, as they had no hand in the act of creating the tweet itself.
  - consumer451 6y ago
    > There is a distinction It is a distinction with no real meaning to me, in this case. If I was an employee at Twitter working to expand the reach of my platform, and the platform was being used to brag about genocide, then I would feel partly responsible for normalizing that behavior.
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      Then I encourage you to continue to develop distinctions and nuance, because this cuts many ways.
      - consumer451 6y ago
        Thank you, I will.
perennate 6y ago
A ministry of information would jail and possibly harvest the organs of those sending the information. As far as I know, Twitter has not arrested and harvested the organs of anyone working in the embassy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
undersuit 6y ago
Yes they do! https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos >By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).
nitwit005 6y ago
The newspapers and TV news stations also won't publish the most offensive statements from foreign leaders (or even local ones) either. You could possibly argue that things like email or telephones won't censor people, but if foreign governments tried regularly calling us to send propaganda, they'd get blocked.
Miner49er 6y ago
I agree. I'd rather Twitter ban people then just arbitrarily remove random tweets. It's not like the tweets aren't still out there somewhere. They just have decided they don't want the average person to be able to see them.
tomc1985 6y ago
They have every right because they are a private corporation. Joke's on China if they think they can post freely without being questioned. There are not enough people holding the Chinese government's nose to the shit they're dropping.
8note 6y ago
Twitter is definitionally a ministry of truth. They can show every tweet to everyone, so they have to pick and choose who sees what tweets. Any sorting or recommendation algorithm makes a choice about what ideas should be signal boosted and which ones should be hidden. You visit twitter to see twitter's take on what's important

throwaway4good 6y ago

I guess it will make Trump feel a bit better ...

runawaybottle 6y ago

I suppose Twitter will learn what real censorship is from the o.g CCP very soon.

ceejayoz 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter > Twitter is blocked in China > According to the official verdicts as of 2020, hundreds Chinese were sentenced to prison due to their tweeting, retweeting and liking on twitter. I don't think they'll be all that surprised.

chloerei 6y ago

Make the charges and then not allow the defendant to speak.

farseer 6y ago
Chinese are not allowed to use twitter thanks to the CCP. That is the twisted irony here.

rainworld 6y ago

Oh no, they said the quiet part out loud. Newsflash, the entire global west is sub-replacement and mostly has been for decades. South Korea just hit a stunning, absolutely suicidal TFR of 0.85. And it's only going to get worse.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
So what's going to happen to those nations in the long term? Are they just going to slowly die off until they get replaced by immigrants? Suggesting this possibility somehow got me banned in several subreddits. There's something going on here.
- brighton36 6y ago
  If it's not superficial, it's offensive. Only prestigious people are licensed to have an opinion that's not superficial.
- rainworld 6y ago
  The future belongs to those who show up. Yes, there's something going on and you are not supposed to talk about it in polite society—or anywhere at this point.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  There's no long-term plan. Even the immigrant plan sucks, because there are very few countries worldwide which aren't on a trajectory to reach replacement TFR within a decade.
gwbas1c 6y ago
> absolutely suicidal TFR of 0.85 The implications of high global population are also (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) "suicidal." With the exception of figuring out how to care for elderly with a declining population, there are many advantages to a declining population. Specifically, the planet only has so many natural resources. We can only pollute so much. If we had significantly less people, things like limited resources and pollution wouldn't be that big of a deal.

mc32 6y ago

They probably didn’t set out to do this. To become the Ministry of Truth, but this is where they are now. They’ve become Pravda. They’ve become CCTV. The irony is probably lost on them. This is so sad. Welcome home ‘Granma’.

chrononaut 6y ago
This seems to be an overreaction, particularly when you have the option not to use it. Just like the majority (of Americans) choose not to use other "free speech" platforms in part because of the disinformation, propaganda, and bots roam free.
- naeemtee 6y ago
  I'm impressed people keep making the "option not to use it" argument. Our lines of communication are monopolized. "Just don't use Facebook/Twitter/Amazon" is an irrelevant argument since there are no alternatives.
  - andrewclunn 6y ago
    Sure there are. You can use Parler... oh wait they were just banned by Google, Apple, and Amazon. I'm sure this isn't any kind of collusion though. Free Market, yeah!
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    You can absolutely love comfortably and normally in the US without Facebook or Twitter. It's more challenging to avoid Amazon entirely, but you can easily avoid supporting them directly.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrononaut 6y ago
    I understand the practical difficulty of another platform being created and being successful, and thus the general recommendation of "not using the platform" is futile. However, this is a comment thread of OP comparing Pravda to Twitter. You are not at a higher risk of death by the government for trying to start a competitive platform to Twitter.

claydavisss 6y ago

Awesome! Locking an entire generation into an echo chamber makes it so much easier to get away with things in real life!

m3kw9 6y ago

People here complaint about moderation is being moderated here, and they are OK with it. OK meaning they are not actively pushing back on such moderations.

julienreszka 6y ago
I don't think that the reality. You can check yourself here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Dang%20abuse&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

Now do the WHO!

btown 6y ago

Forced sterilization is violence, and the glorification of it by any actor is glorification of violence. Certainly this highlights the power that a platform like Twitter has to silence people, but this specific deletion is not inconsistent with Twitter's policies, and it is not itself indicative of further movement down a slippery slope. But it does make it even more important for journalists to have systematic ways of holding Twitter to account should it overstep in the future.

beaunative 6y ago
Is it a violence when a woman's sole purpose is produce babies for her husband? Is it so when it's done in the name of social norms and cultural convention?
bigpumpkin 6y ago
The post by the Chinese embassy is not advocating for forced sterilization. Rather, it is disputing the claim that forced sterilization is happening and saying the decline in birth rate is due to choice by the Uyghur women. Twitter's decision therefore takes a stand on what the "truth" is.
- OwlsParlay 6y ago
  It's the inevitable consequence of policing Trump's tweets. Either you police everything, or you're a hypocrite. This is not intended to judge how true the original article by the way, for future downvoters.
  - Udik 6y ago
    But of course they won't police everything, just what doesn't put them in trouble if they do so. Good luck with deleting a tweet from Netanyahu praising how ethical is the Israeli army.
- perennate 6y ago
  That forced sterilization is happening is fact. Twitter isn't taking a "stand" on what the truth is (it is telling that you put truth in quotes). Twitter is simply deleting tweets that spread misinformation, whether the misinformation is about US election claims or pretending that there isn't a genocide happening in Xinjiang. Actions such as this that deter the spread of fake news on social media platforms are needed because bot accounts that rapidly repeat false statements are possible on the Internet.

dustinmoris 6y ago

I am astonished by how many people claim that China has forcibly steralised women. It might very well be, but I have not seen any evidence yet. Don't we learn anything from our past mistakes? Still waiting for anyone to find mass destruction weapons in Iran. Standing up for human rights is great, but there is a fine line between being a good activist and being ignorant, uninformed and imperialist. A private US company cannot decide for the rest of the world if China has violated humans rights if there is no evidence for it.

farseer 6y ago
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... There are primary sources available that are the basis of this report.
newacct583 6y ago
> I am astonished by how many people claim that China has forcibly steralised women. It might very well be, but I have not seen any evidence yet. While yes, it's true it's very difficult to get solid data out of remote and tightly-locked-down regions of totalitarian states... Let's be honest: if you wanted to Tweet something that convinced the world you were sterilizing Uighurs, this is what you would Tweet. "Pay no attention to that marked change in birth rate, that's just because our women are so happy now!" Yikes.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  If I was an evil authoritarian leader secretly steralising women then I'd not tweet anything and tell all my other minions to not tweet anything that would raise questions. But irrespective of what I would do myself, this tweet does neither prove for or against such actions and therefore it's not Twitter's role to silence it. Let our governments and independent investigative journalists do their work and give us a counter view if they disagree with that tweet. There was no need for Twitter to get involved. I think they did that to balance their editorial decision on Trump and to please both, the democratic party as well as the republican because social media companies fear that new legislation could harm them and so they try to appeal to everyone now.

justinzollars 6y ago

So what. One has more political freedom using Chinese social apps than one has using American social apps.

beerandt 6y ago

>Under current rules, couples in China are allowed to have up to two children, with couples in some rural areas allowed up to three. Aren't recognized "ethnic minorites" (or however they phrase the term) exempt from this law? Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. At a minimum, I thought the limit was higher (than the historic limits for not-minority families). Can anyone confirm or point to authoritative info in english?

diebeforei485 6y ago

Banning Trump means they also have to take action against things like this.

f6v 6y ago

> Beijing is alleged The essence of tech giants: censorship based on allegations.

canada2020 6y ago

Twitter sits at the very top of a stack of technologies. Clearly the internet providers shouldn’t ban specific content, AWS should not either. Since Twitter is the most user facing, does that give it more responsibility to regulate the actual content on its platform? If not Twitter, who (if anyone) has the right to regulate content on the internet?

undersuit 6y ago
>Clearly Why?
BlueTemplar 6y ago
There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do. There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c. https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ (fr) (Some of this has now been implemented in the EU.)
splaytreemap 6y ago
Twitter censoring content is only a problem because they have a near monopoly in their domain and present themselves as a platform for everybody. There's no national discussion about HN moderation because it's a much smaller website with relatively few users. Just in general, if Twitter really believes their platform has the power to induce violence and alter elections, then why are we allowing a small number of unelected Twitter execs complete control to determine how that power is used? Jack Dorsey's vote shouldn't be worth orders of magnitude more than yours and mine just because he's the CEO of a communications platform.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago

Reading through all of these twitter issues lately I still scratch my head how we got to a place where a medium like Twitter, which I've always found to favour the trite and flippant, has become some sort of semi-official mouthpiece for governments and politicians.

derwiki 6y ago
It’s faster than traditional means and they can craft the narrative completely (unlike newspapers, TV news)
- thwarted 6y ago
  It would be just as fast to give high level officials a textbox and a submit button that adds content to a web page.
  - travisjungroth 6y ago
    This is what makes me roll my eyes at anyone who says getting kicked of Twitter is being “silenced”. Make a web page and you have broader and more direct reach than almost anyone on Earth 20 years ago.
    - acct776 6y ago
      But not today.
      - bigwavedave 6y ago
        > But not today. Exactly. That was kind of like telling a content creator to build a web site and post videos there after getting kicked off YouTube. Sure, only a fraction of their fanbase will start using their site to consume their content, but hey, at least they have a broader reach than almost anyone on Earth had 20 years ago.
        6y ago

jijji 6y ago

they seem to more of a publisher/editor of content than a passive platform allowing its users freedom to express their opinions.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

I wonder if Twitter will also remove the feeds from the presidents of Iran, Russia, and NK if they want to quell calls to violence.

kitotik 6y ago
Do you have any citations you can share?
- gurkendoktor 6y ago
  Excuse the source, but this article has a bit of context about Khameini's tweets and the repeated call for their deletion: https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-... This tweet is particularly famous: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864 Honestly I don't think Twitter's removal of the Xinjiang tweet had anything to do with foreign policy at all, it just made feminism look bad, which does actually crush birth rates (even if that's not what happened in Xinjiang). Right-wing Twitter was exploiting the CCP tweet for this alone.
  - kitotik 6y ago
    That tweet seemed more like espousing a belief or opinion than a direct call to action of any sort.
    - gurkendoktor 6y ago
      From his other tweets it looks like a call to action to me, although he has clarified that it's not a call for a massacre. This tweet seems to sum it up: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263551872872386562 I have no opinion on or knowledge about the situation in the Middle East, but I found these tweets interesting in terms of what is allowed on Twitter.
f311a 6y ago

h_anna_h 6y ago

Isn't twitter banned in china? I think it would be fair that since chinese "peasants" can't use it then the chinese "elite", companies, and government should not be able to either. I for one would support twitter banning them, let them taste their own medicine.

La1n 6y ago
Sure, but then ban their account and all ips. Not just tweets that you don't think line up with US version of the truth.
lyrachord 6y ago
U r just a non-human typpinger. China, Chinese! Someone who is sane is able to do the right typing.
shalmanese 6y ago
Twitter isn't "banned" in China in the way Westerners conventionally understand the term. Twitter IPs are blocked as a matter of policy by the GFW. Various institutions inside of China have the IP exception rules like universities and government offices. If you have an officially sanctioned reason to use Twitter like buying ads on there for Western export products, you can apply for an official VPN that gives you legal access to Twitter. Twitter has a sales office in Beijing that helps with stuff like this. Selling unsanctioned VPN services is a crime in China but using an unsanctioned VPN is in a legal gray area but largely tolerated so long as you don't draw attention to yourself. Twitter itself has estimated that it had 10M MAU inside of China as of 2016.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  You just confirmed that Twitter is in fact banned in China in the way that I understand the term.
- DataGata 6y ago
  This was a useful comment, assuming it is true, and even though it is a "debate on definitions" quibble.

redflame8 6y ago

I’m over 18, can I turn safe-search off?

jtdev 6y ago

When will our leaders actually condemn China (not some toothless virtue signaling) and stop the flow of money from American consumers to the CCP? Vote with your wallet, stop buying Chinese products. Stop supporting this clearly evil regime.

conanbatt 6y ago
Not buying chinese products harms chinese producers. It won't make a dent to the billionaire politicians that decide and execute on concentration camps.
- jtdev 6y ago
  That’s entirely false. Less sales from Chinese producers to the U.S. without question weakens the CCP. Would we have been so flippant about buying products from the third reich???
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    Cubans are not faring better because there are sactions that prohibit them from gaining access to basic international services, many of which are free. The pressure has to be applied to the people in charge, to their wealth, to their families abroad, etc. Hitting the guy manufacturing iphones is not an effective or morally reasonable tactic.
    - jtdev 6y ago
      The wealth and power of the CCP is directly tied to the success of Chinese business internationally (much like the Cuban Communist regime). Their is no private enterprise in China; the CCP quite literally owns all means of production in China. I’ll politely refuse your invited to support the CCP (oppressors of the Chinese people) by proxy so as to not upset the people of China - you see how your logic is circular here...?

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

I can’t wait until Twitter has exactly two users after they have banned and kicked out everyone. Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde can tweet their views to the world about how TWTR thinks we should live our lives.

julienreszka 6y ago

Why are they censoring this. We need to know what's happening there! Stop hiding the reality of what they stand for!!!

cptnapalm 6y ago

Neither in the article nor the comments: Twitter previously issued a statement saying that this did not violate their policy. Twitter also justified allowing the calls for genocide by the Ayatollah on their platform. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-... https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/319713/twitter-official-says-ayatollah-khameneis-tweets-are-permissible-because-theyre-foreign-policy-saber-rattling/ https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/319713/twitter-offi...

ZoomerCretin 6y ago
I can't understand why this newspaper would make such an outrageous claim and cite tweets which very clearly disprove the point just made. Am I missing something, or does the Ayatollah not call for genocide in those tweets? To those downvoting, I urge you to read the tweets linked. If I am wrong, simply quote the portion of these tweets which specifically makes a call for genocide and I will be delighted to be proven wrong.
- hu3 6y ago
  Seems pretty clear to me: "Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei's answer to 9 key questions." https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248
  - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
    "What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of Imam Khomeini?" "The only means of bringing Israeli crimes to an end is the elimination of this *regime*. And of course the elimination of Israel *does not mean the massacre* of the Jewish people in this region. The Islamic Republic proposed a practical & logical mechanism for this to international communities." I have a hard time understanding why so many people equate Israel with Israelis. Many people are opposing the Chinese government. Do you also equate their calls to end China's government with a call to genocide against all Chinese?

mantap 6y ago

Twitter has become a place for extremism. Once politicians figured out that they can say anything they want on Twitter, and that their supporters or sock puppets will spread it around like it's the best thing ever, it encourages extremism. People talk about free speech, but free speech has never meant freedom from moderators. Twitter is well within their rights to place limits on allowable content, just as there are limits to allowable content on HN. The Chinese embassy is well within their rights to make these comments on their own website.

awb 6y ago
This is exactly why WordPress became so popular. You own and control your own content. When you choose to create or consume content on a 3rd party platform, you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions, which often includes some scenarios where they can block or censor your content or access. Complaining about that after the fact is pretty silly. The “I’m leaving X and moving to Y” is a temporary solution. Substack, Parler, Spotify, etc. aren’t any better in the long run, they’re just newer and offer a temporary reprieve. You’ve still hitched yourself to a wagon and are along for the ride. Maybe that ride is better for you, but don’t think for a minute that you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re not truly free until you own the distribution network. Or an owner-less blockchain publishing network might eventually work as well.
iso8859-1 6y ago
> The Chinese embassy is well within their rights to make these comments on their own website. Why? It is on the dot-org TLD, doesn't it have to abide by the dot-org rules? According to this article[0], specific threats of violence are not allowed. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.ht...
- pas 6y ago
  So is .org still managed by PIR? Is there a list of domains they suspended because its content (or its user's purpose) was in conflict with their rules?
- 6y ago

hker 6y ago

Earlier Twitter labeled Trump’s more questionable tweets, instead of outright deleting them. I wonder if Twitter could do the same here. Although I disagree with this tweet of China embassy, I want it to be shown to the world for others to judge. If nothing else, we can learn how frequently the China embassy tweets questionably. Labeling it seems right.

jtdev 6y ago
It would seem that Twitter is fearful of the CCP, and simply removed the tweet rather than engage with the CCP in a more confrontational way like labeling their tweets.

throwaway4good 6y ago

The full tweet was as follows: "Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent."

justicezyx 6y ago

Forced birth quota have already prevented 400mm births over it's cause [1]. How many lives that actually translate into is outside of my knowledge scope. Chinese government should receive much bigger and larger scale criticisms. To prevent them applying the policy to other ethnicity groups. But given the geographical situation, I doubt anyone is going to seriously challenge China. No one did that when China was weaker and more cooperative, no one can do that when China becomes strong and assertive. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34666440 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34666440

29athrowaway 6y ago

What China is doing (eugenics) is clearly immoral, and should be condemned. What fewer people is aware of is that the US has a prominent historic role when it comes to the "development" of eugenics. Let's take this horrible book, for example... "The blood of the nation: A study of the decay of the races through the survival of the unfit": https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/n9/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/bloodofnationstu00jorduoft/page/... This book inspired many eugenics programs that took place in the 20th century, including the ones in Nazi Germany. Who wrote this? No other than the founding president of Stanford University, David Starr Jordan. From California. You would expect Americans at the time to be horrified by this book? Not precisely. He received honorary degrees by multiple American universities, and he has a plethora of things named in his honor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starr_Jordan#Monuments_and_memorials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starr_Jordan#Monuments_a... And we could be talking about this all day. The US is also responsible for the mass sterilization of Latinas, with a special emphasis in Puerto Rico. By 1965, 34% of Puerto Rican women aged 20–49 had been sterilized.

Udik 6y ago

Twitter spokesman on the same tweet Thursday 7: "This Tweet is not in violation of our policies", after being asked about it by an Ars Technica journalist. Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-wont-take-down-chinese-tweet-praising-uygur-policy/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-says-it-...

lightgreen 6y ago

Slightly different version is still there: https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347224755485749249 https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/134722475548574924...

thesagan 6y ago

Seems like we’re removing lanes from the “information highway.” A once optimistic future to waste. Like radio and tv. Less participation is better now; as in the famous statement of an “excess of democracy.” How quick we change our values.

curt15 6y ago

Since Twitter is blocked in China, what does Twitter have to gain by letting CCP officials post?

lanevorockz 6y ago

Surprising, finally Twitter bans a truly genocidal tweet instead of just banning politics they disagree with.

retox 6y ago

A tweet that has not been deleted since being posted in February 2019; >"Down with USA" means down with @realDonaldTrump , @AmbJohnBolton and @SecPompeo . It means death to the American politicians currently in power. It means death to the few people running that country; we have nothing against the American nation. https://archive.is/LgMfJ https://archive.is/LgMfJ https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1093791374204420097 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1093791374204420097

archibaldJ 6y ago

Fully justifiable. And a highly sensible move. I just bought some $TWTR cuz of this = ) (As a Chinese I'm always glad to see an American company doing what is right without giving a F how the CCP would take it.)