4 ms·

They choose to do that a lot when it comes to foreign governments. North Korea could in theory send such "legal" demands if they allowed Twitter in the country.

They choose to do that a lot when it comes to foreign governments. North Korea could in theory send such "legal" demands if they allowed Twitter in the country. Actually a big reason for why Musk & co claimed they had to rescue Twitter was because the US government too made such demands to the previous owners and they censored American citizens under very questionable circumstances, including scientists. So at what point does it turn into complicity? And why should censorship of Turks be more acceptable than that of others? If Erdogan wants to go full dictator let him shut down Twitter. Whose side is Musk on?

somenameforme 3y ago
You're absolutely right that North Korea could make the exact same demands if they allowed Twitter, and Twitter would find itself in the same situation. In fact this has already happened with the EU leadership as well, who have plentiful censorship laws to exploit, and were being publicly flexed. Some deal was eventually made there; it's quite unfortunate it was not publicly elaborated upon. But in any case, this is nothing at all like what happened with the US. The US government did not make legal demands, as doing so which would have run into the First Amendment, but instead made 'suggestions' in back channels, which Twitter voluntarily chose to both abide and keep secret, even when they fully recognized it was being abused. There would have been no legal justification for doing anything to Twitter had these 'suggestions' been completely ignored. So Twitter's behavior was entirely on them. As for "sides", after Twitter's decision 99.999% (or whatever absurd decimal it ends up as) of Turkey will retain full direct access to Twitter, instead of 0%. I doubt many of them will be thrilled about these events, and can now freely express that, Streisand effect and all. I don't think he's on the side of the people nor the government of Turkey, but rather he's simply doing what he can to enable the most people to be able to express themselves.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Fair point as to the legality in the US. I'm not sure if there are good arguments for complying with blackmail though, since that's exactly what governments like Turkey (and also the EU) are doing. They threaten them to either take down certain speech or the entire site gets blocked. By complying, the companies give legitimacy to those bullying tactics as well as strengthening the rule of the likes of Erdogan. They blocked Twitter a few weeks ago already, after the earthquake and following criticism of AKP. Unless it's a tactical decision before the election, it's not a good look. I personally know people who have been censored on Twitter at the demand of foreign authoritarian governments. It doesn't only affect foreigners but also dissident immigrants living in the US as a common example.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    The one thing I'd hit on here is the notion of bullying. What Turkey, the EU, and other nations are doing is not bullying. Whether we like those laws or not, those are their laws - and they have every legal right to enforce them. This not only gives the people of those countries clear targets to look for change in, but also a more transparent understanding of what their government is doing. This is only further enhanced if Twitter makes the decision to start regularly publishing these demands, as they ought. But in the US we have constitutional protections against imperiling freedom of speech, and a government determined to imperil freedom of speech. So this results in something much more akin to bullying. The Twitter Files made the leadership at Twitter look both better and worse. It made them look much better in that they often realized what they were being asked to do was wrong. They even realized they (Twitter) were being used in a government sponsored misinformation campaign - in Twitter's own words, they were "feeding congressional trolls." However the files also made them look much worse, because they also invariably went along with these 'suggestions' anyhow. Describing that as bullying would not be inaccurate.
    - trompetenaccoun 3y ago
      Freedom of speech is a universal human right. Laws are no basis for arguments about moral right or wrong, slavery and other atrocities used to be perfectly legal around the world and most people claimed those wanting to abolish it were the crazy radical ones. The history of law is one of injustice. We all know that the people of Turkey have a right to speak their minds, depriving them of this makes Twitter complicit. I get you're trying to view this with more nuance but sometimes there isn't. This moral relativism is a very dangerous view actually, ultimately it boils down to regarding people in Turkey as lesser and not deserving the same rights. We're all one people. If it helps you picture it think of a US state where the local government tries to restrict speech rights or other basic rights. You would have a problem with that if it happens in your backyard, right?
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        Your argument here does not really follow. Had Twitter ignored or refused to comply with Turkey's legal demand, then every single Turk would have lost access to Twitter. Instead, a negligible handful did. In many things in life there is no good option nor bad option. There's a bad option, and a terrible one. So focusing on the bad option being bad says very little.
imtringued 3y ago
I think he is on the side of people who haven't been blocked yet and who use the platform to criticise the government.

somenameforme 3y ago

You're absolutely right that North Korea could make the exact same demands if they allowed Twitter, and Twitter would find itself in the same situation. In fact this has already happened with the EU leadership as well, who have plentiful censorship laws to exploit, and were being publicly flexed. Some deal was eventually made there; it's quite unfortunate it was not publicly elaborated upon. But in any case, this is nothing at all like what happened with the US. The US government did not make legal demands, as doing so which would have run into the First Amendment, but instead made 'suggestions' in back channels, which Twitter voluntarily chose to both abide and keep secret, even when they fully recognized it was being abused. There would have been no legal justification for doing anything to Twitter had these 'suggestions' been completely ignored. So Twitter's behavior was entirely on them. As for "sides", after Twitter's decision 99.999% (or whatever absurd decimal it ends up as) of Turkey will retain full direct access to Twitter, instead of 0%. I doubt many of them will be thrilled about these events, and can now freely express that, Streisand effect and all. I don't think he's on the side of the people nor the government of Turkey, but rather he's simply doing what he can to enable the most people to be able to express themselves.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Fair point as to the legality in the US. I'm not sure if there are good arguments for complying with blackmail though, since that's exactly what governments like Turkey (and also the EU) are doing. They threaten them to either take down certain speech or the entire site gets blocked. By complying, the companies give legitimacy to those bullying tactics as well as strengthening the rule of the likes of Erdogan. They blocked Twitter a few weeks ago already, after the earthquake and following criticism of AKP. Unless it's a tactical decision before the election, it's not a good look. I personally know people who have been censored on Twitter at the demand of foreign authoritarian governments. It doesn't only affect foreigners but also dissident immigrants living in the US as a common example.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The one thing I'd hit on here is the notion of bullying. What Turkey, the EU, and other nations are doing is not bullying. Whether we like those laws or not, those are their laws - and they have every legal right to enforce them. This not only gives the people of those countries clear targets to look for change in, but also a more transparent understanding of what their government is doing. This is only further enhanced if Twitter makes the decision to start regularly publishing these demands, as they ought. But in the US we have constitutional protections against imperiling freedom of speech, and a government determined to imperil freedom of speech. So this results in something much more akin to bullying. The Twitter Files made the leadership at Twitter look both better and worse. It made them look much better in that they often realized what they were being asked to do was wrong. They even realized they (Twitter) were being used in a government sponsored misinformation campaign - in Twitter's own words, they were "feeding congressional trolls." However the files also made them look much worse, because they also invariably went along with these 'suggestions' anyhow. Describing that as bullying would not be inaccurate.
  - trompetenaccoun 3y ago
    Freedom of speech is a universal human right. Laws are no basis for arguments about moral right or wrong, slavery and other atrocities used to be perfectly legal around the world and most people claimed those wanting to abolish it were the crazy radical ones. The history of law is one of injustice. We all know that the people of Turkey have a right to speak their minds, depriving them of this makes Twitter complicit. I get you're trying to view this with more nuance but sometimes there isn't. This moral relativism is a very dangerous view actually, ultimately it boils down to regarding people in Turkey as lesser and not deserving the same rights. We're all one people. If it helps you picture it think of a US state where the local government tries to restrict speech rights or other basic rights. You would have a problem with that if it happens in your backyard, right?
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Your argument here does not really follow. Had Twitter ignored or refused to comply with Turkey's legal demand, then every single Turk would have lost access to Twitter. Instead, a negligible handful did. In many things in life there is no good option nor bad option. There's a bad option, and a terrible one. So focusing on the bad option being bad says very little.

imtringued 3y ago

I think he is on the side of people who haven't been blocked yet and who use the platform to criticise the government.