12 ms·

Forced sterilization is violence, and the glorification of it by any actor is glorification of violence. Certainly this highlights the power that a platform lik

by 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.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This is not true. Twitter is not an arbiter of truth and never was. Their policies are clear.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Does twitter censor US policy-maker's tweets when they trumpet the power of western values to liberate muslim women?
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Do you go to twitter when you need an opinion on your back surgery? Or how to fix a broken tool? Or if your symptoms are covid19 or not? They are not an arbiter of truth or an authority.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        OP and myself are making the case that, by dipping into politics and labelling certain opinions, rhetoric and/or factual claims as "unacceptable", they're making themselves exactly that.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Websites are moderated all the time - that doesn't make them arbiters of truth. I fail to see the actual argument.
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  Thank you for pointing out that the article explicitly states the Chinese position as "The changes were not caused by 'forced sterilization' of the Uygur population". While a tweet advocating forced sterilization might be violence, a tweet saying "We agree forced sterilization is bad, and we are not doing it" is not violence. The justification for removal must lie elsewhere.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The problem with the Chinese government is that it's illegal to investigate the truth behind any statement so there's no way to know if what they say is true.
    - est 6y ago
      > it's illegal to investigate the truth behind any statement so there's no way to know if what they say is true The problem with Twitter is that it can ban information based on western media consensus. aka echo chamber.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  We know what the truth is in this case. This is a holocaust happening in front of us and no one is doing anything.
  - hungryhobo 6y ago
    from what evidence? he said she said? because the data is showing no such thing. if you rather trust data than rhetoric.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      Actual evidence: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/video-uyghurs-shaved-blindfolded-xinjiang-train-station-china/11537628 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/video-uyghurs-shaved-... This is holocaust level work.
      - hungryhobo 6y ago
        The BBC link shows a leak without context. And with some balant mistranslations The ABC link shows a random video uploaded and verified as 'authentic' by someone who sits at his home watching Google maps. If that's the level of evidence required for Holocaust then it's a lost cause to reason with you. also to add, there are 12 million uighur in china, if the claim of genocide on 3 million of uighur is true, that means 1 in 4 uighur are slaughtered. Xinjiang to this day is open for visits for foreigners, there are zero reports of refugees in neighboring countries. If the there is indeed a holocaust going on, then these evidence should be easy to find right? and you probably wouldn't need to rely on "leaks" and videos verified by a 22 year old "goolge map" expert.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        loceng 6y ago
        Genocide doesn't necessarily mean slaughter - the primary method I've heard used is medically preventing women from having children, which then kills off future generations. Genocide also, by definition, relates to killing off a culture - which there's plenty of proof for regarding the CCP's "re-education" camps - where children taken from their parents. And honestly it'd not be hard to hide disposal of human remains, even en mass in systematic way. There are plenty of reports and claims if organ harvesting as well. That your asking these questions makes me think you've not done much research or watched any documentaries on the CCP.
beerandt 6y ago
I know this isn't a popular opinion, but for the sake of sharing: I'm of the belief that any coercion with the intent to disuade women from having any (or more) kids is ethically wrong, (except for some very very limited cases). Govt really shouldn't have a heavy influence on what is a family decision. While I'm all for educating poor areas in order to increase quality of life... if one of the stated goals of that education is to reduce the number of that populations offspring, then there are some tough ethical questions about such a program that need to be answered. And that's before you even get into the "targeted minority" aspects. And yes, I get that one easy way to "improve quality of life" is to have fewer kids (I personally disagree), and I get that educated couples often have fewer kids... but if that's where the bulk of the QoL bump is coming from... Then that's just straight up population control going by an alias with better branding.
- flycaliguy 6y ago
  Aren’t most of these programs designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Is it unethical to assist people in preventing a mistake?
  - OwlsParlay 6y ago
    The argument would be, what is the intent of the CCP in pushing this program, gien the evidence of coercion from Uyghur camp survivors. Is it as virtuous as state media argues? Doubtful.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      CCP pushed birth control for everyone in China (at least publicly)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - arthur2e5 6y ago
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Why is forced sterilization more objectionable than forced body modifications that commonly happen? That it be worse than, for example, forced foreskin removal or teeth correction would only follow from the axiom that reproduction is a higher goal that all should have.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  You can't really genocide a minority group with circumcision.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Genocide is the killing of men who are currently alive. If one can say that one can kill a man who has not yet been conceived, by stopping his hypothetical future birth, then every form of contraception is murder, nay, the simple election not to have sex or otherwise procreate is then murder.
    - croissants 6y ago
      Do you not see the difference between forced sterilization (removing a person's ability to procreate) and contraception (giving a person the ability to have sex without procreating, which they can choose to change later)?
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        Of course I do, simply not by the argument that forced sterilization is genocide, an argument which necessitate that one can “kill” a not yet existing man by stopping his future existence. The argument of genocide of course does not imply that the man who is sterilized is killed so long as he be allowed to live after the sterilization, but rather that his future, hypothetical offspring is, because it would now never come to be. The comparison I made was with forced foreskin removal and forced dental correction, something that can also not be undone.
    - xxpor 6y ago
enriquto 6y ago
> glorification of violence (...) not inconsistent with Twitter's policies Oh, please. Twitter's application of its policies is outrageously inconsistent, even for high-profile U.S. officials. Otherwise, how come the many people who openly defend the extra-judicial killings by the U.S. military (from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump) have yet a twitter account? And I'm not saying anything about tweets supporting the violent overthrow of several governments worldwide; those are tolerated because they align with U.S. interests. Twitter is the ministry of truth of the U.S.A. and its main mouthpiece.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Hillary Clinton has never ordered killings by the U.S. Military. As Secretary of State, or as First Wife, she would never have had that authority.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I didn't say that. Just that she celebrated and defended publicly such killings (e.g., those of Gaddafi, the bin Laden family, etc). EDIT: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 (This tweet by Hillary Clinton glorifies an extrajudicial killing in foreign territory, with the opposition of the country where it happened, and at the same time manages to sneak in some falsehoods. The text is: "When our SEALs took out bin Laden, they brought the terrorists' families to safety first. That's American honor. " This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Hillary tried to stand up to Panetta over drone killings and back up her ambassador in PK and Obama threw her under the bus.
      - 6y ago
Miner49er 6y ago
Twitter doesn't apply this evenly though. If any call to violence is supposed to be removed. Every tweet calling for the arrest of Trump (or anyone) also needs to be removed. Edit: not sure if this is allowed but I'm curious why I am being downvoted? Is there some logic I'm missing here? Or I guess people just think state-sanctioned violence should be allowed? If so, wouldn't this tweet by China be fine, since this violence is being done by the Chinese state?
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  The difference between - an illegal mob ransacking Congress in an attempt to overthrow an election, and - a constitutional arrest of a criminal president (e.g. by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, or by the FBI under Mike Pence’s and the Cabinet’s order via the 25th Amendment) should not need an explanation.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I never mentioned the Capitol protest? I'm talking about this tweet by China. This is state sanctioned violence (by China) and so is arresting someone. Twitter is clearly drawing a line somewhere about what violence is okay, and what violence isn't, and it's not particularly clear where it is and if there is any bias.
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      I was referring to your comment about arresting Trump - Twitter’s line is clearly about “legal” state violence. This wouldn’t be murder or forced sterilization or a coup d’etat. But it could be a legal (or even legally murky) military action, and certainly the arrest of someone like President Trump, who is subject to many good-faith allegations of serious violent crimes, and should be arrested to face trial for them. It is worth noting that “state-sanctioned” violence does not always mean legally-sanctioned violence, since state actions can easily be criminal, or at least lawless. - The Capitol Hill mob was illegal violence, albeit state-sanctioned (by endorsement of the president) - Arresting the president (either under Congressional authority or the 25th amendment) would be legal state-sanctioned violence - Although nominal Chinese law is somewhat authoritarian with regard to ethnic minorities and Muslims, the reason the Xi regime is so desperate to cover up and propagandize the concentration camps is that they are illegal under Chinese and international law
29athrowaway 6y ago
Meanwhile, in Canada... forced sterilization of indigenous First Nation women (Native Americans): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-lawsuit-could-expand-1.5102981 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-la... They're not isolated cases.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Let's say the journalists decide that Twitter is suppressing important information. Let's say that ABC News does an article on it. That's good. It gets the word out, within limits. But the word would get out much better if people tweeted links to the article... ... which Twitter can block.

by btown 6y ago

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.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
This is not true. Twitter is not an arbiter of truth and never was. Their policies are clear.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Does twitter censor US policy-maker's tweets when they trumpet the power of western values to liberate muslim women?
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Do you go to twitter when you need an opinion on your back surgery? Or how to fix a broken tool? Or if your symptoms are covid19 or not? They are not an arbiter of truth or an authority.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      OP and myself are making the case that, by dipping into politics and labelling certain opinions, rhetoric and/or factual claims as "unacceptable", they're making themselves exactly that.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Websites are moderated all the time - that doesn't make them arbiters of truth. I fail to see the actual argument.
Noumenon72 6y ago
Thank you for pointing out that the article explicitly states the Chinese position as "The changes were not caused by 'forced sterilization' of the Uygur population". While a tweet advocating forced sterilization might be violence, a tweet saying "We agree forced sterilization is bad, and we are not doing it" is not violence. The justification for removal must lie elsewhere.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The problem with the Chinese government is that it's illegal to investigate the truth behind any statement so there's no way to know if what they say is true.
  - est 6y ago
    > it's illegal to investigate the truth behind any statement so there's no way to know if what they say is true The problem with Twitter is that it can ban information based on western media consensus. aka echo chamber.
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
We know what the truth is in this case. This is a holocaust happening in front of us and no one is doing anything.
- hungryhobo 6y ago
  from what evidence? he said she said? because the data is showing no such thing. if you rather trust data than rhetoric.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    Actual evidence: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50511063 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/video-uyghurs-shaved-blindfolded-xinjiang-train-station-china/11537628 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/video-uyghurs-shaved-... This is holocaust level work.
    - hungryhobo 6y ago
      The BBC link shows a leak without context. And with some balant mistranslations The ABC link shows a random video uploaded and verified as 'authentic' by someone who sits at his home watching Google maps. If that's the level of evidence required for Holocaust then it's a lost cause to reason with you. also to add, there are 12 million uighur in china, if the claim of genocide on 3 million of uighur is true, that means 1 in 4 uighur are slaughtered. Xinjiang to this day is open for visits for foreigners, there are zero reports of refugees in neighboring countries. If the there is indeed a holocaust going on, then these evidence should be easy to find right? and you probably wouldn't need to rely on "leaks" and videos verified by a 22 year old "goolge map" expert.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - loceng 6y ago
        Genocide doesn't necessarily mean slaughter - the primary method I've heard used is medically preventing women from having children, which then kills off future generations. Genocide also, by definition, relates to killing off a culture - which there's plenty of proof for regarding the CCP's "re-education" camps - where children taken from their parents. And honestly it'd not be hard to hide disposal of human remains, even en mass in systematic way. There are plenty of reports and claims if organ harvesting as well. That your asking these questions makes me think you've not done much research or watched any documentaries on the CCP.

beerandt 6y ago

I know this isn't a popular opinion, but for the sake of sharing: I'm of the belief that any coercion with the intent to disuade women from having any (or more) kids is ethically wrong, (except for some very very limited cases). Govt really shouldn't have a heavy influence on what is a family decision. While I'm all for educating poor areas in order to increase quality of life... if one of the stated goals of that education is to reduce the number of that populations offspring, then there are some tough ethical questions about such a program that need to be answered. And that's before you even get into the "targeted minority" aspects. And yes, I get that one easy way to "improve quality of life" is to have fewer kids (I personally disagree), and I get that educated couples often have fewer kids... but if that's where the bulk of the QoL bump is coming from... Then that's just straight up population control going by an alias with better branding.

flycaliguy 6y ago
Aren’t most of these programs designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Is it unethical to assist people in preventing a mistake?
- OwlsParlay 6y ago
  The argument would be, what is the intent of the CCP in pushing this program, gien the evidence of coercion from Uyghur camp survivors. Is it as virtuous as state media argues? Doubtful.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    CCP pushed birth control for everyone in China (at least publicly)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- arthur2e5 6y ago

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Why is forced sterilization more objectionable than forced body modifications that commonly happen? That it be worse than, for example, forced foreskin removal or teeth correction would only follow from the axiom that reproduction is a higher goal that all should have.

ceejayoz 6y ago
You can't really genocide a minority group with circumcision.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Genocide is the killing of men who are currently alive. If one can say that one can kill a man who has not yet been conceived, by stopping his hypothetical future birth, then every form of contraception is murder, nay, the simple election not to have sex or otherwise procreate is then murder.
  - croissants 6y ago
    Do you not see the difference between forced sterilization (removing a person's ability to procreate) and contraception (giving a person the ability to have sex without procreating, which they can choose to change later)?
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Of course I do, simply not by the argument that forced sterilization is genocide, an argument which necessitate that one can “kill” a not yet existing man by stopping his future existence. The argument of genocide of course does not imply that the man who is sterilized is killed so long as he be allowed to live after the sterilization, but rather that his future, hypothetical offspring is, because it would now never come to be. The comparison I made was with forced foreskin removal and forced dental correction, something that can also not be undone.
  - xxpor 6y ago

enriquto 6y ago

> glorification of violence (...) not inconsistent with Twitter's policies Oh, please. Twitter's application of its policies is outrageously inconsistent, even for high-profile U.S. officials. Otherwise, how come the many people who openly defend the extra-judicial killings by the U.S. military (from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump) have yet a twitter account? And I'm not saying anything about tweets supporting the violent overthrow of several governments worldwide; those are tolerated because they align with U.S. interests. Twitter is the ministry of truth of the U.S.A. and its main mouthpiece.

gamblor956 6y ago
Hillary Clinton has never ordered killings by the U.S. Military. As Secretary of State, or as First Wife, she would never have had that authority.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I didn't say that. Just that she celebrated and defended publicly such killings (e.g., those of Gaddafi, the bin Laden family, etc). EDIT: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/773545200807534592 (This tweet by Hillary Clinton glorifies an extrajudicial killing in foreign territory, with the opposition of the country where it happened, and at the same time manages to sneak in some falsehoods. The text is: "When our SEALs took out bin Laden, they brought the terrorists' families to safety first. That's American honor. " This is false, since several members of the bin Laden family died in the attack, including women and children. I'm not saying that killing bin Laden was wrong, just that Twitter policies are wildly inconsistent regarding violence and falsehood.)
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Hillary tried to stand up to Panetta over drone killings and back up her ambassador in PK and Obama threw her under the bus.
    - 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago

Twitter doesn't apply this evenly though. If any call to violence is supposed to be removed. Every tweet calling for the arrest of Trump (or anyone) also needs to be removed. Edit: not sure if this is allowed but I'm curious why I am being downvoted? Is there some logic I'm missing here? Or I guess people just think state-sanctioned violence should be allowed? If so, wouldn't this tweet by China be fine, since this violence is being done by the Chinese state?

ojnabieoot 6y ago
The difference between - an illegal mob ransacking Congress in an attempt to overthrow an election, and - a constitutional arrest of a criminal president (e.g. by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, or by the FBI under Mike Pence’s and the Cabinet’s order via the 25th Amendment) should not need an explanation.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I never mentioned the Capitol protest? I'm talking about this tweet by China. This is state sanctioned violence (by China) and so is arresting someone. Twitter is clearly drawing a line somewhere about what violence is okay, and what violence isn't, and it's not particularly clear where it is and if there is any bias.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    I was referring to your comment about arresting Trump - Twitter’s line is clearly about “legal” state violence. This wouldn’t be murder or forced sterilization or a coup d’etat. But it could be a legal (or even legally murky) military action, and certainly the arrest of someone like President Trump, who is subject to many good-faith allegations of serious violent crimes, and should be arrested to face trial for them. It is worth noting that “state-sanctioned” violence does not always mean legally-sanctioned violence, since state actions can easily be criminal, or at least lawless. - The Capitol Hill mob was illegal violence, albeit state-sanctioned (by endorsement of the president) - Arresting the president (either under Congressional authority or the 25th amendment) would be legal state-sanctioned violence - Although nominal Chinese law is somewhat authoritarian with regard to ethnic minorities and Muslims, the reason the Xi regime is so desperate to cover up and propagandize the concentration camps is that they are illegal under Chinese and international law

29athrowaway 6y ago

Meanwhile, in Canada... forced sterilization of indigenous First Nation women (Native Americans): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-lawsuit-could-expand-1.5102981 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-la... They're not isolated cases.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Let's say the journalists decide that Twitter is suppressing important information. Let's say that ABC News does an article on it. That's good. It gets the word out, within limits. But the word would get out much better if people tweeted links to the article... ... which Twitter can block.