6 ms·

Twitter succumbs to Erdoğan’s pressure, silences key voices on election eve

107 points by b0sk 3y ago

dotcoma 3y ago
“free speech absolutist”. ROTFL
- detaro 3y ago
  free speech for people that should be absolute leaders, like himself. totally makes sense. /s
  - unflxw 3y ago
    (free (speech absolutist)), not ((free speech) absolutist)
- b0sk 3y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/13/23722574/welcome-to-hell https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/13/23722574/welcome-to-hell The previous regime at Twitter actually stood up to Erdogan.
- elforce002 3y ago
  Just to be on the same page, you're advocating Twitter to get out of any country that does this, right? Is there any social network capable of functioning without being banned from the country by outright omit government rulings? fb? Ig? mastodon? The reality is not all countries have 1A like the US. Unfortunately, any social media, message app, etc... has to comply (to a certain extent) with the government and try as hard at it can not to compromise its values.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    No I believe his point was that Elon Musk called himself a free speech absolutist and is proving he is not.
    - decremental 3y ago
      He was asked this in a BBC interview and he said they have to comply with local laws (this was about India) and that they have to so their employees there don't go to prison. It's not the gotcha you think it is.
      - KomoD 3y ago
        Because Twitter had a physical presence in India, with offices, etc. Twitter rejected demands from the Turkish government to open offices way back in 2014 because they knew it was a risk. And also technically doesn't matter, him not being a free speech absolutist still stands true
      - fzeroracer 3y ago
        It's not a 'gotcha'. It's what he literally claimed. He claimed to be a free speech absolutist and would do whatever it takes to support free speech. People fell for this, because obviously it's not true and sustainable. And the fact that he's complying with censorship in Turkey because he has businesses and other liabilities there show one of the core problems with him running a social media business.
- palmer_fox 3y ago
  Paraphrasing Musk's rude response. Twitter has 2 options: a) comply and block the account in question and b) not comply and get banned in Turkey, which would, of course, make the account in question not easily reachable from Turkey. Either choice will restrict free speech. This situation reminds me of the trolley problem.
  - rasz 3y ago
    >not comply and get banned in Turkey like wikipedia? https://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-wikipedia/turkish-court-rules-wikipedia-block-is-a-rights-violation-idINP8N26O01N https://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-wikipedia/turkish-cou...
    - palmer_fox 3y ago
      In case you missed it - the general election in Turkey is happening _today_. Getting banned weeks before and then getting un-banned some time in the future would have had a far more destructive impact on the political opposition.
      - KomoD 3y ago
        Explain how it has a more destructive impact on the opposition?
        palmer_fox 3y ago
        Twitter is often used to distribute messages from the political opposition and to organize protests. Banning one account means a single voice is silenced before the election. Banning Twitter means it is harder for the opposition to organize an effective protest.
        KomoD 3y ago
        It's not just one account
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cbeach 3y ago
Unfortunately in a country like Turkey, if Twitter doesn’t comply with the regime, the regime simply blocks Twitter for everyone in the country. Erdogan meddles (with only partial success, hopefully) or Erdogan blocks? What’s worse?
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Twitter should pretend to comply while rerouting information.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  Meddling is worse. If Twitter is blocked, everyone there knows exactly what's going on. If some people are silenced, it's much easier for that to go unnoticed.
  - esafak 3y ago
    They could just insert a banner saying they blocked certain accounts to appease Erdogan and people would still know. His voters don't mind meddling; they are not free speech absolutists.
    - andrewflnr 3y ago
      Oh please, do you think Erdogan would think that's funny? That'll just get Twitter blocked harder, even after you decide to bend over for him.
      - esafak 3y ago
        It's not a secret whose accounts are blocked or why, so what's the joke?
- Avamander 3y ago
  Blocking things highlights the problematic behaviour and annoys people, platforms censoring themselves just helps an agenda. They shouldn't get their cake and eat it too.
h2odragon 3y ago
Which governments should Twitter obey, then?
- austhrow743 3y ago
  None. They should shut down so that they can free from the ideological impurity necessitated by existing in society.
- semilattice 3y ago
  There are 4 types of 'pressures' a social media platform execs are facing a) economic b) legal c) selective-outrage judicial/law enforcement d) personal bias (of the execs) In US, before Musk -- Twitter was succumbing to (c) and (d) During Musk era, in US -- Twitter is facing (a) (c) (d) . Although it seems that (a) is not that strong/relevant. In Turkey, today, Twitter is facing ( b ) and ( c ). -- As users and observers we have to realize these pairs (Country + Pressure type union) and make relevant conclusions about the Country and about Twitter execs. We cannot just remove the 'type' system out of these, and make conclusions.
fwlr 3y ago
Seems like the choice was between “Turkey blocks all of Twitter for all Turkish citizens” and “Twitter blocks certain tweets or accounts for all Turkish citizens”[1], and in addition Twitter will release information on what specifically the Turkish government requested to be blocked[2]. I know Elon has endlessly declared himself a free speech absolutist, but to me this seems like a perfect test case of “free speech maximalist” vs “free speech absolutist” - in general, the maximalist preference is 100% > 99% > 98% > … > 1% > 0%, while the absolutist preference is 100% > 0% > 1-99%. If he thinks his decision here is obviously correct then he’s actually a maximalist, not an absolutist like he so often claimed. (Personally, I think this is a surprisingly sensible approach. I’ve long thought maximalism to be superior to absolutism, almost everywhere. In the case of free speech on the internet in particular, I take it as axiomatic that “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, and consider it an obvious corollary that minimizing the amount of damage results in the most efficient and rapid re-routing.) 1: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657422401754259461 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657422401754259461 2: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657428707995181058 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657428707995181058
- timeon 3y ago
  > free speech maximalist the term is: hypocrisy
  - thdespou 3y ago
    Same old .
- dmatech 3y ago
  This happened before back in 2014[1] and also involved Twitter blocking access to certain posts or accounts under the threat of a total block. What exactly are their alternatives? I suppose they could drag their feet a day or two until after the election, but after that, they'd be subject to fines, complete blocks of the site (like what happened to Wikipedia[2] for almost three years), and who knows what else. They could attempt to fight this in Turkish courts, but that might be futile. 1. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/challenging-the-access-ban-in-turkey.html https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/challenging-t... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey
mrtksn 3y ago
Meanwhile, Turkey's oldest and most popular social media "Ekşi Sözlük" was blocked again today. Previously, the original domain eksisozluk.com was blocked and the reason given was "the site has unnaturally large number of critics". Once the appeals to the court failed, they switched to eksisozluk2023.com and it was fine for a while but tonight they blocked that domain too. Now the new domain is eksisozluk42.com An interesting fact is, the website is run by a legal entity registered in Turkey, with physical offices in central Istanbul. They are known to run the website by the book and removing any content the court demands but the core principle is "anything legal goes". So it's quite a free speech platform, despite some controversies over they years. It's ridiculous to have them blocked since they are %100 legal. The government literally just said "fuck it, just block it".
rainytuesday 3y ago
So just like the 2020 election, then? De-platform political opponents and mock them by saying "build you own platform, its a private company"?
nyagaga 3y ago
After all there is a precedent, when Twitter decided to ban the former US President on its own account without any sort of court ruling mandating that. I don't agree with this move with regards to Turkey, but no one ever reflects on this?
- papito 3y ago
  The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? All that outrage and righteous indignation, and for what? to do a 180 and claim that "Twitter is just a cold-hearted business, free speech or not"? Really? Any reflecting on THAT?
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? The problem is that there's so much overlap between the people who think that court decision was wrong and that the bakery should have had to bake the gay cake and the people who support Twitter's ban of Trump. If you think something is unfair/unjust/unconstitutional/whatever and that it should be undone/repealed/overturned, then you shouldn't argue for other things using that thing as precedent. It's dishonest to say both "Y is okay because X is okay and X is basically the same as Y" and "X isn't okay".
    - papito 3y ago
      I support the right of businesses to make decisions of that kind, but I do not have to agree with them. As opposed to shrieking "bloody murder, the commies are coming for our tweets, are they going to shoot us next, we are being muzzled." The drama that came with a business decision was just over-the-top. So if you think is fine, okay, but I don't want to hear an outrage ever again about someone being deplatformed. It's not against the law or the Constitution.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Their ToS are pretty clear there were also under a none free speech absolutist CEO. Your question makes no sense and implies the only thing you wanted to do was incite a flame war.

107 points by b0sk 3y ago

dotcoma 3y ago

“free speech absolutist”. ROTFL

detaro 3y ago
free speech for people that should be absolute leaders, like himself. totally makes sense. /s
- unflxw 3y ago
  (free (speech absolutist)), not ((free speech) absolutist)
b0sk 3y ago
https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/13/23722574/welcome-to-hell https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/13/23722574/welcome-to-hell The previous regime at Twitter actually stood up to Erdogan.
elforce002 3y ago
Just to be on the same page, you're advocating Twitter to get out of any country that does this, right? Is there any social network capable of functioning without being banned from the country by outright omit government rulings? fb? Ig? mastodon? The reality is not all countries have 1A like the US. Unfortunately, any social media, message app, etc... has to comply (to a certain extent) with the government and try as hard at it can not to compromise its values.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  No I believe his point was that Elon Musk called himself a free speech absolutist and is proving he is not.
  - decremental 3y ago
    He was asked this in a BBC interview and he said they have to comply with local laws (this was about India) and that they have to so their employees there don't go to prison. It's not the gotcha you think it is.
    - KomoD 3y ago
      Because Twitter had a physical presence in India, with offices, etc. Twitter rejected demands from the Turkish government to open offices way back in 2014 because they knew it was a risk. And also technically doesn't matter, him not being a free speech absolutist still stands true
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      It's not a 'gotcha'. It's what he literally claimed. He claimed to be a free speech absolutist and would do whatever it takes to support free speech. People fell for this, because obviously it's not true and sustainable. And the fact that he's complying with censorship in Turkey because he has businesses and other liabilities there show one of the core problems with him running a social media business.
palmer_fox 3y ago
Paraphrasing Musk's rude response. Twitter has 2 options: a) comply and block the account in question and b) not comply and get banned in Turkey, which would, of course, make the account in question not easily reachable from Turkey. Either choice will restrict free speech. This situation reminds me of the trolley problem.
- rasz 3y ago
  >not comply and get banned in Turkey like wikipedia? https://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-wikipedia/turkish-court-rules-wikipedia-block-is-a-rights-violation-idINP8N26O01N https://www.reuters.com/article/turkey-wikipedia/turkish-cou...
  - palmer_fox 3y ago
    In case you missed it - the general election in Turkey is happening _today_. Getting banned weeks before and then getting un-banned some time in the future would have had a far more destructive impact on the political opposition.
    - KomoD 3y ago
      Explain how it has a more destructive impact on the opposition?
      - palmer_fox 3y ago
        Twitter is often used to distribute messages from the political opposition and to organize protests. Banning one account means a single voice is silenced before the election. Banning Twitter means it is harder for the opposition to organize an effective protest.
        KomoD 3y ago
        It's not just one account

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cbeach 3y ago

Unfortunately in a country like Turkey, if Twitter doesn’t comply with the regime, the regime simply blocks Twitter for everyone in the country. Erdogan meddles (with only partial success, hopefully) or Erdogan blocks? What’s worse?

hgsgm 3y ago
Twitter should pretend to comply while rerouting information.
andrewflnr 3y ago
Meddling is worse. If Twitter is blocked, everyone there knows exactly what's going on. If some people are silenced, it's much easier for that to go unnoticed.
- esafak 3y ago
  They could just insert a banner saying they blocked certain accounts to appease Erdogan and people would still know. His voters don't mind meddling; they are not free speech absolutists.
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    Oh please, do you think Erdogan would think that's funny? That'll just get Twitter blocked harder, even after you decide to bend over for him.
    - esafak 3y ago
      It's not a secret whose accounts are blocked or why, so what's the joke?
Avamander 3y ago
Blocking things highlights the problematic behaviour and annoys people, platforms censoring themselves just helps an agenda. They shouldn't get their cake and eat it too.

h2odragon 3y ago

Which governments should Twitter obey, then?

austhrow743 3y ago
None. They should shut down so that they can free from the ideological impurity necessitated by existing in society.
semilattice 3y ago
There are 4 types of 'pressures' a social media platform execs are facing a) economic b) legal c) selective-outrage judicial/law enforcement d) personal bias (of the execs) In US, before Musk -- Twitter was succumbing to (c) and (d) During Musk era, in US -- Twitter is facing (a) (c) (d) . Although it seems that (a) is not that strong/relevant. In Turkey, today, Twitter is facing ( b ) and ( c ). -- As users and observers we have to realize these pairs (Country + Pressure type union) and make relevant conclusions about the Country and about Twitter execs. We cannot just remove the 'type' system out of these, and make conclusions.

fwlr 3y ago

Seems like the choice was between “Turkey blocks all of Twitter for all Turkish citizens” and “Twitter blocks certain tweets or accounts for all Turkish citizens”[1], and in addition Twitter will release information on what specifically the Turkish government requested to be blocked[2]. I know Elon has endlessly declared himself a free speech absolutist, but to me this seems like a perfect test case of “free speech maximalist” vs “free speech absolutist” - in general, the maximalist preference is 100% > 99% > 98% > … > 1% > 0%, while the absolutist preference is 100% > 0% > 1-99%. If he thinks his decision here is obviously correct then he’s actually a maximalist, not an absolutist like he so often claimed. (Personally, I think this is a surprisingly sensible approach. I’ve long thought maximalism to be superior to absolutism, almost everywhere. In the case of free speech on the internet in particular, I take it as axiomatic that “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, and consider it an obvious corollary that minimizing the amount of damage results in the most efficient and rapid re-routing.) 1: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657422401754259461 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657422401754259461 2: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657428707995181058 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657428707995181058

timeon 3y ago
> free speech maximalist the term is: hypocrisy
- thdespou 3y ago
  Same old .
dmatech 3y ago
This happened before back in 2014[1] and also involved Twitter blocking access to certain posts or accounts under the threat of a total block. What exactly are their alternatives? I suppose they could drag their feet a day or two until after the election, but after that, they'd be subject to fines, complete blocks of the site (like what happened to Wikipedia[2] for almost three years), and who knows what else. They could attempt to fight this in Turkish courts, but that might be futile. 1. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/challenging-the-access-ban-in-turkey.html https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2014/challenging-t... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey

mrtksn 3y ago

Meanwhile, Turkey's oldest and most popular social media "Ekşi Sözlük" was blocked again today. Previously, the original domain eksisozluk.com was blocked and the reason given was "the site has unnaturally large number of critics". Once the appeals to the court failed, they switched to eksisozluk2023.com and it was fine for a while but tonight they blocked that domain too. Now the new domain is eksisozluk42.com An interesting fact is, the website is run by a legal entity registered in Turkey, with physical offices in central Istanbul. They are known to run the website by the book and removing any content the court demands but the core principle is "anything legal goes". So it's quite a free speech platform, despite some controversies over they years. It's ridiculous to have them blocked since they are %100 legal. The government literally just said "fuck it, just block it".

rainytuesday 3y ago

So just like the 2020 election, then? De-platform political opponents and mock them by saying "build you own platform, its a private company"?

nyagaga 3y ago

After all there is a precedent, when Twitter decided to ban the former US President on its own account without any sort of court ruling mandating that. I don't agree with this move with regards to Turkey, but no one ever reflects on this?

papito 3y ago
The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? All that outrage and righteous indignation, and for what? to do a 180 and claim that "Twitter is just a cold-hearted business, free speech or not"? Really? Any reflecting on THAT?
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > The courts ruled that a bakery can deny a gay couple a cake. Trump was denied his gay cake. What is the problem? The problem is that there's so much overlap between the people who think that court decision was wrong and that the bakery should have had to bake the gay cake and the people who support Twitter's ban of Trump. If you think something is unfair/unjust/unconstitutional/whatever and that it should be undone/repealed/overturned, then you shouldn't argue for other things using that thing as precedent. It's dishonest to say both "Y is okay because X is okay and X is basically the same as Y" and "X isn't okay".
  - papito 3y ago
    I support the right of businesses to make decisions of that kind, but I do not have to agree with them. As opposed to shrieking "bloody murder, the commies are coming for our tweets, are they going to shoot us next, we are being muzzled." The drama that came with a business decision was just over-the-top. So if you think is fine, okay, but I don't want to hear an outrage ever again about someone being deplatformed. It's not against the law or the Constitution.
Zetobal 3y ago
Their ToS are pretty clear there were also under a none free speech absolutist CEO. Your question makes no sense and implies the only thing you wanted to do was incite a flame war.