8 ms·

This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have

This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done more than just ban a few leaders, removing many accounts associated with QAnon, for example [1]. The point still stands that context matters and the two situations don't appear to be exactly equivalent. (It can still be argued that Twitter's ban was not good for society, but the argument should be more nuanced than "because censorship is always bad".) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/11/trump-twitter-ban/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/11/trump-t...

johndevor 6y ago
> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.
- twelfthnight 6y ago
  I updated my post to be more accurate about the extent of Twitter's actions regarding bans. Also, to be fair, conservatives are associated with the conspiracy theories and the Capitol riots, so it makes sense they would be targeted. I agree it is a shame if there are some conservatives who are not promoting conspiracy theories that have been silenced.
  - yters 6y ago
    Yes, conservatives have been the only group associated with riots this year. Makes total sense why they are the only ones targeted.
- fwsgonzo 6y ago
  When tens of millions of people protest something, it could just be because they have a legitimate grievance. That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.
  - eunos 6y ago
    And Twitter should act as an arbiter for such distinction?
    - EEMac 6y ago
      They decided to.
- tmpz22 6y ago
  Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?
  - johndevor 6y ago
    No. I'm saying that leftwing violence is distributed. Rightwing is centralized. The radical left is smart. There's no head antifa leader. Doesn't mean antifa is any less dangerous, I might argue more dangerous because there's no head to the hydra.
    - tmpz22 6y ago
      Are you making the argument that there are coordinated, yet distributed, Antifa cells spread across America that pose a greater or equal threat then: 1) the mob that stormed the capitol building with threats to kill and kidnap US congressmen, senators, and the VP? 2) the several dozen Michigan militia members currently indicted for attempting to kidnap the governor of Michigan 3) the texas commuters who attempted to steer the Biden/Harris campaign bus off the highway
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - derptron 6y ago
    Are you saying rules should be selectively enforced based on class?
- einpoklum 6y ago
  What you've linked to is a splicing of several segments of video which attempts to link together events, groups, places people and organizations most of which are not actually linked together. For example: * A person says "looting", and in a following or preceding segment another person, on another channel at another time says "Antifa". * An image of cars on fire in the background, and segments by some anchors or pundits saying that protests are important, or should not be polite. So, while I'm no fan on MSNBC, CNN etc., and think they're being rather hypocritical with their treatment of the confirmation protesters - that clip is just under-handed smearing by its author and by you.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Every large platform selectively enforces rules. The squeakiest wheels get the grease. The Twitter firehose is a notoriously large amount of data; difficult for computers to parse, and impossible for a human to review unless brought to their attention. I don't think it's fair to automatically attribute it to malice. Also, not sure I'm following what that link is supposed to demonstrate. Twitter has no power to censor cable news networks.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Double standards are bad. Principles should matter more than your biases.
- twelfthnight 6y ago
  I'm trying to make the case in my comment above that I don't believe the situations are equivalent and thus there is no double standard. (You can of course disagree with this and I'd be interested in your argument) There is one standard for leaders who promote documented conspiracy theories and another for blocking an entire country's access to social media in an effort to alter the outcome of an election.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    The leaders who tirelessly promoted Russian influence conspiracy theory and supported violent riots last year are somehow not blocked.
  - curlyQueue 6y ago
    Feel compelled to provide context on a double-standard, here are just a few counter examples of leaders in US politics who have, with their speech, “promoted conspiracy theories” and “incited violence” with no measures taken to make them accountable for their words. While no person, country or company is perfect... maybe Uganda witnessed this and decided to take a more formal position, like BigTech decided: - Stacey Abrams claimed election fraud and was never censored on social media. - "protesters should not let up," - "This is a movement, I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day," she said. "And everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not." - Vice-president elect Kamala Harris - "there needs to be unrest in the streets." - - "You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." - Rep. Ayanna Pressley - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." - "You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet," - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," - Rep. Maxine Waters Probably more.. something to consider. “You Americans are gullible. We’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands”. — Nikita Kruschev

johndevor 6y ago

> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.

twelfthnight 6y ago
I updated my post to be more accurate about the extent of Twitter's actions regarding bans. Also, to be fair, conservatives are associated with the conspiracy theories and the Capitol riots, so it makes sense they would be targeted. I agree it is a shame if there are some conservatives who are not promoting conspiracy theories that have been silenced.
- yters 6y ago
  Yes, conservatives have been the only group associated with riots this year. Makes total sense why they are the only ones targeted.
fwsgonzo 6y ago
When tens of millions of people protest something, it could just be because they have a legitimate grievance. That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.
- eunos 6y ago
  And Twitter should act as an arbiter for such distinction?
  - EEMac 6y ago
    They decided to.
tmpz22 6y ago
Are you saying the personal comments of a MSNBC reporter are equivalent to the personal comments of a sitting US president or Senator?
- johndevor 6y ago
  No. I'm saying that leftwing violence is distributed. Rightwing is centralized. The radical left is smart. There's no head antifa leader. Doesn't mean antifa is any less dangerous, I might argue more dangerous because there's no head to the hydra.
  - tmpz22 6y ago
    Are you making the argument that there are coordinated, yet distributed, Antifa cells spread across America that pose a greater or equal threat then: 1) the mob that stormed the capitol building with threats to kill and kidnap US congressmen, senators, and the VP? 2) the several dozen Michigan militia members currently indicted for attempting to kidnap the governor of Michigan 3) the texas commuters who attempted to steer the Biden/Harris campaign bus off the highway
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- derptron 6y ago
  Are you saying rules should be selectively enforced based on class?
einpoklum 6y ago
What you've linked to is a splicing of several segments of video which attempts to link together events, groups, places people and organizations most of which are not actually linked together. For example: * A person says "looting", and in a following or preceding segment another person, on another channel at another time says "Antifa". * An image of cars on fire in the background, and segments by some anchors or pundits saying that protests are important, or should not be polite. So, while I'm no fan on MSNBC, CNN etc., and think they're being rather hypocritical with their treatment of the confirmation protesters - that clip is just under-handed smearing by its author and by you.
kube-system 6y ago
Every large platform selectively enforces rules. The squeakiest wheels get the grease. The Twitter firehose is a notoriously large amount of data; difficult for computers to parse, and impossible for a human to review unless brought to their attention. I don't think it's fair to automatically attribute it to malice. Also, not sure I'm following what that link is supposed to demonstrate. Twitter has no power to censor cable news networks.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Double standards are bad. Principles should matter more than your biases.

twelfthnight 6y ago
I'm trying to make the case in my comment above that I don't believe the situations are equivalent and thus there is no double standard. (You can of course disagree with this and I'd be interested in your argument) There is one standard for leaders who promote documented conspiracy theories and another for blocking an entire country's access to social media in an effort to alter the outcome of an election.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  The leaders who tirelessly promoted Russian influence conspiracy theory and supported violent riots last year are somehow not blocked.
- curlyQueue 6y ago
  Feel compelled to provide context on a double-standard, here are just a few counter examples of leaders in US politics who have, with their speech, “promoted conspiracy theories” and “incited violence” with no measures taken to make them accountable for their words. While no person, country or company is perfect... maybe Uganda witnessed this and decided to take a more formal position, like BigTech decided: - Stacey Abrams claimed election fraud and was never censored on social media. - "protesters should not let up," - "This is a movement, I’m telling you, they’re not going to stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day," she said. "And everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not." - Vice-president elect Kamala Harris - "there needs to be unrest in the streets." - - "You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." - Rep. Ayanna Pressley - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." - "You think we’re rallying now? You ain’t seen nothing yet," - "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere," - Rep. Maxine Waters Probably more.. something to consider. “You Americans are gullible. We’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands”. — Nikita Kruschev