4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes, the government can't delegate it's dirty work to private companies. The SC has been very clear on that.
- as300 5y agoThere 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 agoIt 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.