22 ms·

Twitter sees jump in govt demands to remove content of reporters, news outlets

• windex 5y ago
  Time for more service decentralization.
  • convolvatron 5y ago
    ok. done. I've written you a decentralized social media platform. why haven't you come and started using it?
    • dane-pgp 5y ago
      For all you know, windex may already be using Mastodon or some other service that's part of the Fediverse. Your question should instead be aimed at the millions of people who still use Twitter, but of course you know the answer already: They use Twitter because millions of other people also use it, i.e. network effects.
      • dclowd9901 5y ago
        That’s his point, I believe. The problem isn’t decentralization, the problem is how do you undermine network effects.
        • throwaway3699 5y ago
          With great time, and care. Discord managed to do this in only 4 years, so it is possible. The cynical side of me says that a distributed social network, by definition, doesn't have the ability to run large marketing campaigns like Discord.
          • lapetitejort 5y ago
            Yeah, a better question might be: "How can I convince a VC that there's a buck to be made when the user can just take all their data and leave?"
            • throwaway894345 5y ago
              "Look, many countries are enforcing privacy rights; the ad model isn't sustainable. You should start a social media network with a different model so that you can be the first mover who benefits from network effects when the privacy shoe finally drops". Something like that, although I don't delude myself into thinking that's coming in the near future unless perhaps Apple makes it part of its new privacy-centric campaign. Even then I'm not sure Apple would do better with respect to free speech and moderation.
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • JohnWhigham 5y ago
            It's a little different. Discord launched amidst a power vacuum, at least with respect to a chat/community platform for video games. Xfire was the only real one, but it had been on the decline for years. A better analogy would be a decentralized Discord competitor trying to start right now and with the odds it has going up against Discord.
          • jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
            Discord got traction because it was substantially better than Teamspeak, and Skype leaks IPs letting jerks DDoS you. It turning into something of a social network was very unexpected.
        • throwaway894345 5y ago
          One way is to compel (via legislation) all social media networks to speak a decentralized protocol. Another is to make Mastodon, etc a lot better because every one I've tried has been pretty abysmal. In other words, make a product that is compelling enough to get people to move over to it.
          • anigbrowl 5y ago
            One way is to compel (via legislation) all social media networks to speak a decentralized protocol. This seems both feasible and practical. Sure, it will have problems - from the point of view of ___ platform regulars, it would be like an 'eternal September' of how everything got worse once those awful people from Other Platform were able to cross-post but that would probably spur innovation in client-side filtering. I like Mastodon (apart from the me-too-ism of calling Mastodon posts 'toots') but agree that Fediverse offerings are mostly like desktop Linux or cheap fusion - they'll be really great when one of them takes off. The sad fact is that there are lots of designs that are as good as or somewhat better than the big platforms, but none of them are categorically different. Consider the evolution of social media: Newspapers: Anyone can write to editor Telephones: Anyone can talk to anyone Usenet: Anyone can post in a hierarchy of topics Web: Anyone can have a webpage Google: Anyone can navigate the web Blog: Anyone can have an opinion column Youtube: Anyone can be on TV Twitter: Anyone can amplify their random thoughts Facebook: Anyone can publish a yearbook GitHub: Anyone can be a tech star Instagram: Anyone can publish a magazine cover Snapchat: Anyone can look like a celebrity LinkedIn: Anyone can be a professional Tinder: Anyone can be a porn star Bitcoin: Anyone can be rich Crypto: Anyone can be a central banker Periscope: Anyone can be be a TV reporter Tiktok: Anyone can be iconic Fediverse: Anyone can run a social network Obviously I'm being very tongue-in-cheek here but what makes a platform stand out is providing the ability to do something different that was not previously available, and either socializing that or making it stupid easy to do so - ie 'Love XYZing? Do it here and get noticed.' If your offering is 'YYYYY for ZZZZZ' (where Z might be anything from 'hermits' to 'everybody') then you'll get some rapid adoption because it's easy to understand but it will plateau pretty fast. The secret of success is making people say 'No way, how does that work' and being able to say 'easy just Do The Thing and press this magic button.' The Thing has to be something whose benefit is immediately comprehensible but whose availability is extremely limited or outright fictional. >90% of social proposals offer new and improved buttons, but experience suggests people are quite tolerant of inferior buttons (network quality, uptime, etc) as long as Doing The Thing is still novel; you work on the button in between getting your first and second competitors. If many people hate or don't get The Thing You Do that's actually a plus because all the misfits will flock to your platform and give you their cult-like loyalty. I think the mistake with Fediverse stuff is the pitch that 'you can have total control/do it all' - if I wanted that I would have become a sysadmin, but the reality is that everyone wants to use email but hardly anyone wants to run their own SMTP server, much as most people want to drive fast cars and look good doing it, but relatively few choose to be mechanics or take up the risks of competitive driving. You need to have a benevolent dictator/Santa Claus/Mommy/Team figure(s) that people can coalesce around, who gives you both a way to Do The Thing and permission to use it - it's 50% technical innovation but also 50% validation. People like having a person they can connect with both for technical requests/gripes and to serve as surrogate parents/friends. A socially oriented product/platform with no personalities attached is a contradiction in terms; it might be fun to play with but you probably won't tell your friends about it. A: I have feelings about this B: Me also A: The world should know of my feeling B: Indeed A: I shall now Do The Thing B: WHAT A: Yeah check it out B: WANT A: Sign up like so B: I am momentarily fascinated, who made this A: Bro and Sis, they are super cool B: How I do a thing... A: Like this, it is the Bro and Sis way B: I feel my life changing around me A: Now you are family B: Best friend would love this If your pitch (to anyone) is 'Look at This Thing' or 'That Thing but different' or 'Have you tried The Other Thing' you are ultimately soliciting someone else's attention and the results will be proportionate to how people allocate their limited time. What you want instead is to improve an existing moment in some unexpected way, and then convey a sense of permanence or continuity in relation to the improvement. The witness to/beneficiary of the improvement will then be motivated to trace The Thing back to its source, to whom they will offer publicity/ suggestions/ technical help/ money or whatever. To conclude, the breakout path for the Fediverse is not to solve this or that problem of social with a nicer button; when you offer solutions to a problem some may appreciate or even love it, but the appreciation often comes with a 'but...'. Rather, it is to build Fediverse technology into some novel object, and use federation to solve the (inevitable) issues that arise as the novelty gains in popularity.
    • SamPatt 5y ago
      Been there, helped build an open source decentralized product. Rhetorical demand higher than actual demand. Of course it's a ridiculously difficult nut to crack. But people like the idea more than the reality, and it's hard to blame them when the product typically has some serious (and likely unavoidable) tradeoffs.
    • AzzieElbab 5y ago
      Nowadays people target multiple platforms in parallel, streaming to YT/rumble/odysse at the same time for example.
  • throw_m239339 5y ago
    People go to these social medias because there is a large audience, how is decentralization going to help? The only people who are using decentralized tools are the ones that have been kicked out of these big social medias at first place.
    • blooalien 5y ago
      > "The only people who are using decentralized tools are the ones that have been kicked out of these big social medias at first place." Do you honestly believe that? Some of us use decentralized tools because we remember the Internet before centralization and corporate/government control over it started turning it into a cesspool of advertising and propaganda and see the huge corporate properties (Facebook especially) for the societal poison that they are.
      • ryder9 5y ago
        decentralized networks have just as much propaganda and bullshit because of the types of people involved in that also why are you on HNews, it's not decentralized and it def is a social network if your decentralized network is so great and popular
      • reedjosh 5y ago
        Thank you. I too miss the days when I could find niche opinions and in depth knowledge via a simple search.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• throwaway20875 5y ago
  The slippery slope is real. The power to veto anyone's speech is toxic. Entrusting it to anyone, particularly those in power, is the implicit agreement to forfeit liberty.
  • adsharma11 5y ago
    Journalists are crossing the lines more and more these days, so the number of such requests will continue to increase.
    • _jal 5y ago
      Which lines are those? Specifics would help.
      • k33n 5y ago
        Questioning the establishment is now completely off limits.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • meh99 5y ago
    Free speech is not under attack. No one has ever had a “freedom to demand others broadcast my personal speech at great technical and financial cost”. Anyone who thinks “free speech” obliges others to distribute their message is of dubious sanity. It’s authoritarian af to believe everyone else is your tape recorder. Edit: of course those who are all about free speech downvote me, proving my point; you aren’t obliged to import my message personally and chose to censor it publicly. But Twitter… they’re not people. Just big black box. So much for HN being a community of thinkers.
    • SllX 5y ago
      I’ll be the first outside of Twitter to defend Twitter’s free speech and private property interests, but that doesn’t mean free speech isn’t under attack by governments and the politically ambitious. Twitter wants to kick you off because Twitter wants to kick you off? Fine. But Twitter does kick you off because the Government, any government because screw authoritarianism wherever it lives, asked them to? Then there’s a problem.
• baldeagle 5y ago
  Key points: Timeline for the report was the back half of 2020. India and the US were the top requestors for take downs. There are new laws in India and some other countries regarding control of speech online. I wonder if the US based takedown trends will continue into 2021 with the new administration.
  • ntrz 5y ago
    The article says Twitter ``declined to elaborate on which countries submitted the [journalist takedown] demands'' but that India and the US were the top sources of ``all information requests'', which is a more general category that also includes things like requesting a user's IP address, etc. I don't think it's necessarily true that the `information request' rankings match the journalist takedown request rankings. The takedowns aimed at journalists were only 2% of all the `information requests' they received, according to the numbers in the article (361 journalist requests, 14,500 total `information requests').
    • murph-almighty 5y ago
      So these "information requests" could be, say, checking a user's IP to track fake news?
    • brandmeyer 5y ago
      Those information requests also likely include law enforcement investigations for a wide range of activities. Plenty of crooks get caught just because they blabbed about it on social media.
• eplanit 5y ago
  Was banning (acting in coordination with Facebook) the NY Post for publishing reports about Hunter Biden due to government demands, or just the request of DNC operatives?
• k33n 5y ago
  Real journalism barely exists anymore. All independent journalists who aren't parroting the anti-freedom, pro-communist talking points are facing very real persecution -- if they haven't been silenced completely.
• josh_today 5y ago
  Boris Johnson’s recent comments after England’s Euro 2020 loss highlight this challenge the best. Government officials are pressuring social media corporations to define and continually refine their content policies. Simultaneously governments are requesting content removal from the corporations. It’s a back and forth where the users and general population are ignored. Our elected officials should be structuring new frameworks for social media companies to operate within. We’re entering a new era with outdated laws.
  • Nasrudith 5y ago
    Really what we need is to stop part one period. That is abuse of power and should be seen just as unacceptable as a governor demanding favorable election coverage from reporters.
    • josh_today 5y ago
      Agreed. That’s the low hanging fruit. Question is where we go from there: Allowing for content moderation opens the door to selective bias. On the other hand, a “hands off” approach can lead to its own form of content extremism. The ability to post anonymously (at least anonymously to other users) will come into the conversation as well.
• animal_spirits 5y ago
  I like Github's policy where they publish all of the takedown requests to a public repository to be viewed by anyone. I hope this can be a standard for other tech companies as well.
  • jp42 5y ago
    Is this the one you are referring to? https://github.com/github/dmca https://github.com/github/dmca
    • animal_spirits 5y ago
      Yes that is the one, thanks
    • kbenson 5y ago
      Probably not, DMCA takedowns are not from the government, but from non-governmental entities that claim copyright is being infringed. Governments have the ability to require a request not be made public, so a repo of their requests would not be complete, and I suspect some large offenders would be absent entirely because of that.
  • bananapub 5y ago
    do they really do that? or do you just mean DMCA?
    • animal_spirits 5y ago
      I was just referring to the DMCA notices here https://github.com/github/dmca https://github.com/github/dmca , but I think it is a great idea for transparency.
    • h_anna_h 5y ago
      https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns
      • 5y ago
• failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Twitter isn't FBI raid-proof and that's a SPoF. The US govt has the technical power and legal force to shut it off when it has or invents the authority to do so. This existential threat means Twitter, in the absence of moral/ethic leadership courage, is compelled to bow down to individual legal demands. If end users want freedom with a centralized service, it has to be based in a neutral country and also accessible by VPN, p2p overlay network, etc. It would also be better if such a service were also distributed.
• OhWellLol 5y ago
  Over the past four years, this website aggressively supported the creation of the nearly autonomous banning policies and degradation toolkits social media platforms used. Why? Because you had to STOP LE EBIL TRUMP!!!!11!!!! Did you think those tools would magically disappear with a new US president? Did you think the other nearly 200 nations in the world wouldn't request their usage once the hyper-connected "self-appointed permanently rational" faction of American consumers signed off of them? You celebrated and cheered every single time "another evil Nazi" was deplatformed. Your heroes are next and there won't be a fucking thing you can do about it. You are free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from the consequences, etc.
  • uniqueid 5y ago
    So the dire consequence is... I won't be able to read my heroes' tweets?
    • OhWellLol 5y ago
      When we hijack these fully automated and totally unaccountable censorship mechanisms, not only will no one come to your aid when we target you and your loved ones with them, we'll make sure to to livestream your pleas for mercy and frame them as threats. :)
    • pyronik19 5y ago
      The 3% of twitterazis who go around terrorizing institutions and brands into pushing wokeness are the dire consequence. That's the effect these echo chambers are having due to all the canceling and banning.
      • Niglodonicus 5y ago
        'Cancel culture' is not an actual thing. There do exist instances where someone gets shunned or shitcanned for something they said 10 years ago, which is a questionable practice and not very common, but when someone is in a public facing position or otherwise position of power or influence, and does or says some heinous shit in the present, getting fired or having their show cancelled or what have you is not evidence of some wider 'cancel culture' to shut down free speech, it's absolutely normal operating procedure; society has always functioned this way. If you go into a church and start spouting 'God is a ball of spaghetti' you'll get shunned and kicked out, in 2021 or 1021, and no one's going to call that 'cancel culture'. 'Wokeism' is not an actual thing, either. Sure, there's a few nutjobs on the internet but they don't have any actual influence; absolutely none compared to conspiracy theorists, anyway. The reason corporations do stuff like Pride month or Black History month is pure marketing pandering to make them seem more human. You conservatives sure spend a lot of time inventing boogeymen to invest your time into fighting. It is after all, pretty standard ur-fash protocol.
• forz877 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is certainly under attack and has been under attack by the previous administration more blatantly than ever. And of course, as is typical with the US, once one administration gets away with something, the future ones do, as well.
• juanani 5y ago
  Or we shouldn't label state funded media as 'journalism'. But how will our propaganda mouthpieces spread freedom in our interest?
• curiousgeorgio 5y ago
  People arguing about Twitter being a private company with the freedom to censor content are missing the point. Yes – that's true, but the disturbing thing here is the fact that governments are increasingly pressuring them to do it (and that carries a lot of weight, with or without legal force). The real problem is that governments think this kind of behavior is okay, and continue to do it. I don't care if a company decides to censor content on its platform, but if my government is telling them (and other platforms) what can and can't be said, I consider that a clear violation of free speech. This is a failure of government, not Twitter (or not only Twitter). Twitter needs to publish a list of exactly who in the government is doing this, and we should hold those people responsible and replace them. The government works for us, remember?
  • hooplah 5y ago
    Yes, the government can't delegate it's dirty work to private companies. The SC has been very clear on that.
  • as300 5y ago
    There is one reason Twitter is not doing this, and one reason the governments can do this in the first place, and that is money. Twitter makes money off of users in other countries (its stock performance is tied to % increase of DAU). Twitter knows its service is pretty easy to replicate and is thus willing to play by these government's rules. If Twitter doesn't play by the rules, there are plenty of local players who would be very happy about that.
    • curiousgeorgio 5y ago
      It sounds like you're conflating market incentives with government misconduct. Governments "can do this" because we're letting them get away with it. Plain and simple. The money is mostly irrelevant in the matter. The fact that Twitter has an incentive to follow the law and preserve its own existence is beside the point.
• MrPatan 5y ago
  A refreshing change of pace to twitter journalists demanding the removal of anybody else's content
• user764743 5y ago
  ITT: people with no education in political thought confusing censorship and moderation to feel smart.
  • reedjosh 5y ago
    I'm not sure it's to feel smart or make a facetious argument, but yeah wow. This article is about government coercion--not Twitter moderation. According to the article, the US is the number two requestor of takedowns today.
    • 3minus1 5y ago
      No, it says the US government is the number two for "information requests." It doesn't mention anything about the US and requests to remove content.
• foolinaround 5y ago
  When one government/party (implicitly or explicitly) gets twitter to put content favorable to it to the detriment of its opponents, right there, twitter lost the script, and the moral standing. the talk of legality is nonsense, because there are jurisdictions where anything can be made legal. The vast majority of the world will be better off with a twitter/fb etc cut down to size, and the current massive power of social media networks being reduced.
  • burnished 5y ago
    Can you point to some specific examples, instead of leaving it vague? I ask because I'm curious whether there are more pertinent framings than of a disagreement purely between political parties.
  • LatteLazy 5y ago
    Making them smaller will make them more likely to resist government censorship how exactly?
    • username90 5y ago
      Being large just makes you a large target, smaller things like HN wont get targeted since governments lack the capacity to handle that many things. And being large doesn't offer much protection to resist once targeted either, no matter how large they are they wont sacrifice significant revenue for moral reasons.
    • foolinaround 5y ago
      twitter is attacked exactly because they are the only voice out there. As an example, There are several newspapers in India, which still continue to post opinions critical of the government. There is a system of courts still, sort of working, and would step in if things got too bad.
    • munk-a 5y ago
      A single shut down of a platform can be written off as "for the children" or some other character assassination BS. When you start repeatedly attacking platforms that's when you get the moderates of your country to start taking umbridge. I think a good parallel might be TikTok in the US, Trump was exploring banning the platform toward the end of his term without a particularly large pushback from the general populace (though a whole bunch of pushback from tech literate folks). You can use excuses like that a time or two without raising too many eyebrows, but once it becomes a pattern people get angry. Having more smaller platforms makes it harder to effectively accomplish any censorship since your few shutdown freebies won't significantly impact the ability for political opponents to communicate with the public.
• insulanus 5y ago
  I'm glad to see this topic so hotly debated here. After having read most of the comments here, most of the discussion is turning on the point of what the first amendment does or does not require. That's great - the law should be the low bar for behaviour of the government, corporations and populance. The first amendment is an excellent part of the constitution, putting the U.S. far ahead of many other regimes when it comes to free speech. However, it's not the be-all end-all. The corporate and political landscape, the balance of power between the people and government, and the U.S.'s geopolitical situation have changed since 1791. Too many people treat the American constitution like the U.S.A. Law-Bible - ever correct, never flawed, never to be updated. That is absurd. The last amendment was ratified in 1992, and I'd say we are overdue for a few more. In your arguments, please distinguish what is legal from what you think is the right thing to do.
  • zpeti 5y ago
    We can’t have no moderation. There are a million reasons from spam to hostile government bots etc. At least the US legally allows companies (ie prevents government censorship) to choose what they moderate, rather than almost any other country where governments can easily censor. But I believe we can’t really have winner takes all markets any more, for political reasons. The current winners in these social network markets have basically aligned with one political side. This isn’t even a question any more. So what will happen? The market will correct. At a minimum these markets will split in two with duopolies, one for each political side, but it could be more fragmented. Just like in old media. We have fox and cnn, we will have Facebook Twitter and whatever the right will build. It’s inevitable. Network effects won’t save the day when you are censoring mainstream right views. You can’t be seen to be against half your market. The customers will leave. It might take time, but they’ll leave.
    • deregulateMed 5y ago
      Instead of calling them "bots", call them propagandists. They are often real humans writing spin.
    • reedjosh 5y ago
• game_the0ry 5y ago
  History has never been kind to institutions when those institutions attempted to influence the distribution of information. It just shows how fragile and desperate those institutions are.
  • grumblenum 5y ago
    Egyptian scribes, the Oracles of Delphi, the Medieval Catholic Church and journalists and of today all seem to be treated kindly enough. The "intelligentsia" exists to serve the prevailing regime (they cannot exist without patrons). Sometimes those regimes last centuries. I would tend to agree, however, that hysteria among the intelligentsia is an indicator of the feelings of insecurity among their patrons. Hysteria probably sums up the last 5 years to my recollection.
    • game_the0ry 5y ago
      >Humanity has never been served well by institutions when those institutions attempted to influence the distribution of information. It just shows how fragile and desperate those institutions are. Fixed it.
• cwkoss 5y ago
  Julian Assange was the canary in the coal mine. Authoritarian censorship is going to be a major political battle this decade.
  • Clubber 5y ago
    >Authoritarian censorship is going to be a major political battle this decade. It has been one since arguably 2001, probably earlier. It's just the populace wasn't aware we were fighting it.
    • l33t2328 5y ago
      If the populace isn’t aware they’re being fighting authoritarian censorship then I’d question if they are experiencing authoritarian censorship.
      • Clubber 5y ago
        That's kinda the point of censorship though isn't it? So the populace doesn't know things. I didn't know the US was requesting journalistic takedowns on Twitter until today. Keep in mind, the same government is also threatening anti-trust action and subpoenaing CEOs of these companies, while making these requests, so I would consider that a coerced request. I request that you let me search your car or you go to jail isn't really a request.
        • cwkoss 5y ago
          Yesterday, buried in an article about combatting vaccine fearmongers, a pretty disturbing snippet was included: "Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages." https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccina... Though the goal in this case is seemingly well-intentioned, the idea of the government inspecting and editorializing private communications is incredibly worrying to me. I don't trust feds to perpetually restrict this capability to only public health... Imagine if Trump had the capability to append "fact checks" with any SMS that included a link on articles which cast him in a negative light.
• andred14 5y ago
  Welcome to Fascism
• robgibbons 5y ago
  Thought experiment: a US government-hosted social network. Because the government is the host, they can't censor anything on the platform, unlike private social networks. The moderation policy would effectively be the content of the first amendment, barring actual illegal content. Call it publicsquare.gov
  • yibg 5y ago
    That'll just be a social network full of spam and trolls.
    • mattcwilson 5y ago
      Honest question: what keeps the present private-for-profit social media platforms from falling in the same pit?
      • munk-a 5y ago
        Don't they? FB is full of anti-vaxxer and foreign propoganda as it is and trolling is legion. The only reason spam is partially dealt with (commercial spam at least) is because FB (and similar networks) don't want spammers to shoulder in on their profit center.
      • rainsil 5y ago
        It's not clear that the government is legally able to censor all types of spam. If the spam is commercial, the Central Hudson four-pronged test on commercial speech restrictions applies,[1] which requires, among other things, that the restrictions be "no more extensive than necessary to serve [the government's] interest". Non-commercial forms of spam would probably be protected from removal by the First Amendment, unless, perhaps, they overloaded the government's servers. Trolling categorised as "obscene" would be removable, but otherwise may be protected by the First Amendment. Also, the fact that every content moderation decision may be subject to litigation would make it extremely difficult for the government to meaningfully moderate content. Private platforms, not bound by the First Amendment, and allowed to moderate without assuming liability by Section 230, wouldn't suffer these problems [1]: Via White Buffalo v. UT Austin
• Camillo 5y ago
  A "man bites dog" story.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  This should be seen also in the context of the recent relevations by the Guardian and Sophie Zhang. Social media has created the machine for mass manipulation that authoritarians have been waiting for
• Consultant32452 5y ago
  Twitter has no power in this censorship. The power passes through them, but it is not their power because they have no choice. And it's not coming from the government either. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/big-tech-has-no-power-at-all https://graymirror.substack.com/p/big-tech-has-no-power-at-a...
• neonate 5y ago
  https://archive.is/mKOSJ https://archive.is/mKOSJ
• herpderperator 5y ago
  > In its transparency report published on Wednesday Although easy to find on Google[0], does anyone else find it frustrating that the sentence in the article isn't cited? [0] https://transparency.twitter.com/ https://transparency.twitter.com/
• justshowpost 5y ago
  I don't see any problem here, Twitter was removing news outlets' content on their own [1] (and possible by undisclosed requests of their shareholders, you know who). Now they have to do just the same in the more transparent manner on behalf of public service. [1] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/06/21/twitter-censors-conservative-news-site-for-story-on-tweet-reporting-coronavirus-vaccine-death/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/06/21/twitter-censors-co...