2 ms·
>This seems perfectly fair to me and I don't understand the controversy. Maybe in the US people see "State Affiliated" as some kind of an insult? From Twitter'
by stusmall 4y ago
>This seems perfectly fair to me and I don't understand the controversy. Maybe in the US people see "State Affiliated" as some kind of an insult?
From Twitter's definition
> State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.
Yes. That is an insult.
- shagie 4y agoFrom their definition from a week ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated https://web.archive.org/web/20230404115255/https://help.twit... > State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. > State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy. Note that that copy is currently still live on the China specific version of the page: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affiliated-china https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia...
- stusmall 4y agoI was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and using only the most current one. Policies get updated over time and that's okay. It's a good thing for organizations to change their mind, update and improve policies. The thing is here it's dumb no matter what version of the policy you look at lmao