Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship

  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Twitter
In summary: Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it wants. I'm sure they will respond to what their customers want. If people don't like it, then they can use a different service.In summary, Twitter has announced a new tool that allows it to selectively censor users' tweets based on certain criteria, which has sparked controversy. However, some argue that this tool is a positive solution to allow countries to enforce their own laws without completely blocking access to the site. Others have expressed concern about the potential for political control of Twitter. Ultimately, Twitter is a private company and users have the option to switch to a different service if they disagree with its policies.
  • #1
19,412
9,961
The social networking service*Twitter announced a new tool today that allows it to selectively censor users’ tweets based on a host of criteria. *This has taken a lot of heat from some critics but there’s another side to this that … Continue reading →http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=virtualnavigator.wordpress.com&blog=11498882&post=843&subd=virtualnavigator&ref=&feed=1

Read More...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I actually see this as a positive thing. It's a good solution to permit countries to impose their own laws without restricting what people say and see in countries that have different laws. This is a big challenge with the international reach of the internet, and certainly is a better solution than countries taking the drastic measure of completely blocking access to certain sites if their content doesn't comply with the laws of those countries.
 
  • #3
Thanks for the news and response. I would like to hear reactions from more people to this, if there are some, because since I don't use twitter I don't feel able to accurately imagine how this will actually play out.

Here's a quote from "Virtual Navigator" that Greg linked to:
”Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world,” Twitter wrote in a blog post.​

What Moonbear says sounds reasonable. It seems like a positive outcome would depend on there being some balance or counterweight to ensure restrained and judicious use of the censorship power.
 
  • #4
I was hoping to hear more different opinions about this. I think the issue is of historical importance.
Central censorship of social networking.

I often share Moonbear's PoV on things. But am not sure about this. Maybe an organization should draw the line somewhere and NOT concede past that point. So then if the regime wants more censorship and the twitter networker company says NO and the regime totally blocks the network, then the people may demonstrate disapproval and force the regime to allow the network.

That way you could say that the people of the country have a clear visible issue that they can decide for themselves. they, rather than the regime, then decide how much freedom of speech and assembly they want.

I don't use twitter and have little relevant experience, so can't say definitely what I think about this. But intuitively I would hope that Twitter would not be infinitely cooperative with whatever the recognized government of the region is. I would hope they draw the line somewhere.

EDIT TO REPLY TO NEXT POST.
I don't want to reply after your post, Greg, because your byline on the menu might draw some responses. As it stands it worries me how little reaction there is. Efficient social networks potentially strengthen civil society. I think. If they are open. On the other hand a politically controlled online network could strengthen political control. Unfortunately I can't contribute meaningfully to the discussion since I lack direct experience.

I can imagine a "one party" Twitter where ordinary citizens (if they want state approval, job advancement, and perks) are expected to make a certain numbers of tweets per year and to get a certain number of thumbs up. So ordinary citizens would tend to participate cooperatively.

Unless more people are interested in talking, it would be a waste of your brother-in-law's time, would it not? Or maybe he would show up in General Discussion, which is more visible. Start a new thread with more fanfare.

Why aren't people more concerned about political control of Twitter?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
marcus said:
I was hoping to hear more different opinions about this.

My brother-in-law wrote the piece. I can try to get him in here to chat. Unfortunately he's on vacation at the moment :)
 

What is the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship"?

The "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" is a feature on the social media platform Twitter that allows for the centralized control and removal of certain content deemed inappropriate or in violation of their community guidelines.

Why was the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" created?

The "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" was created in response to growing concerns about the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content on the platform. It allows for a more streamlined and efficient process of removing such content.

How does the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" work?

The "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" is a tool that is only accessible to a select group of Twitter employees who are responsible for monitoring and enforcing the platform's community guidelines. They have the ability to review and remove content that violates these guidelines.

Is the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" used often?

The frequency of the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" being used varies depending on the type and amount of violating content on the platform. However, Twitter has stated that they only use this tool as a last resort and prioritize promoting healthy discussions and free expression on their platform.

What are the potential drawbacks of the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship"?

One potential drawback of the "Twitter Tool Allows Centralized Censorship" is the potential for abuse and biased censorship. Critics argue that this tool gives too much power to a select group of individuals and may result in the suppression of diverse viewpoints and opinions. Additionally, there is a concern that this tool may be used to silence marginalized communities and voices.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Back
Top