21–30 of 76 posts
I can see a future where something like this becomes default in most countries. Unthinkable just a few years ago.
This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…
https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544
Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.
This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…
This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…
> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.
This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…
> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.
That said, it should be perfectly OK to permanently ban seditionists and traitors, as well as those who egg them on. If those are conservatives to you, then that's your words, not mine.
This doesn't look good for Twitter, but comparing blocking an entire country from social media a few days before an election and blocking a few leaders who have clear ties to inciting violent riots via conspiracy theories seems like a false equivalence. Instead of justifying censorship as "good" or "bad" in some essential fashion, I think it's important to be clear about the context. EDIT: In fact, Twitter has done m…
Double standards are bad. Principles should matter more than your biases.
There is one standard for leaders who promote documented conspiracy theories and another for blocking an entire country's access to social media in an effort to alter the outcome of an election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clear ties to inciting violent riots https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1347302588434284544 Twitter selectively enforces their rules, largely targeting conservatives.
I updated my post to be more accurate about the extent of Twitter's actions regarding bans. Also, to be fair, conservatives are associated with the conspiracy theories and the Capitol riots, so it makes sense they would be targeted. I agree it is a shame if there are some conservatives who are not promoting conspiracy theories that have been silenced.
The difference, as I understand it, is that the government made the choice for people rather than a private organization. Under the US constitution, free speech means that the government cannot limit your speech except in narrow circumstances. This has no bearing on private organizations, which is why Twitter can ban users.
Yet, they don't like it when a country blocks them. This is hypocrisy, regardless how people might try to distinguish one kind of "blocking" from another.
It would be better if Uganda didn't block social media. It would also be better if social media didn't block users here in the U.S.