Twitter is incapable of doing any judgements where the leaders / office holders of any country are concerned. If people want to follow a leader, let them. If they are incapable of handling what they see then that's on them. They are leaders of countries, not some Instagram star.
Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
111–120 of 373 posts
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes the genocidal rhetoric is not subtle, but sometimes they market it as "protecting minorities" (Assad, who is decimating the Sunni Muslim majority), or "liberating women from being baby factories" (Chinese Communist Party, on forced sterilization of Uighur women).
Dissent is valuable. Twitter should allow replies on these posts. There should be more transparency on how the replies are ranked or hidden.
Hitler and Mussolini were not debated, they were defeated. Dissent is good if it's your only option, but we're talking about external parties not under the control of these "leaders".
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?
I was struck by the Chinese embassy that got banned a couple months ago. They said that their fight against radical islam is good for uighur women.. which is propaganda but also the exact same propaganda that western interventionists use all the time. One is ok, the other is not.
Well it probably helps only one of those is sterilizing muslim women while keeping them in detention camps?
Fighting a multi-national ground war against ISIS is a bit different then genocide against your own citizens.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#114Be a free speech platform, how about that?
How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to take a look at Voice of America, a Congress-funded network that broadcasts almost exclusively outside the US as US propaganda: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Sorry, I'm not making the connection to what OP was saying. Can you expand? Does Voice of America pretend to be a domestic news source to the areas it broadcasts?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#116If Twitter maintains its place in public discourse and communication, then sooner or later the “approach to world leaders” or politicians on any level becomes a moot point, because if anyone's views diverge to a sufficient degree from Twitter staff they will be banned long before attaining political office.
Twitter should not be filtering and censoring public discourse, debate, and information, acting as the arbiter of what ideas and information can influence politics.
Communications platforms in the United States should adhere to the United States constitution.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#117Twitter is incapable of doing any judgements where the leaders / office holders of any country are concerned. If people want to follow a leader, let them. If they are incapable of handling what they see then that's on them. They are leaders of countries, not some Instagram star.
> Twitter is incapable of doing any judgements where the leaders / office holders of any country are concerned.
What do you mean by this? Surely Twitter is capable of making judgments and enforcing its rules accordingly, just like Burger King can require the president to pay for his meals. Are you saying Twitter should decline to enforce any rules against world leaders?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#118Simple answer to this entire issue: If it’s not illegal, don’t censor or moderate it in any way. Social media companies like Twitter realize that this is the most reasonable approach, but it effectively removes their ability to manipulate... so of course they continue to censor and moderate in a biased fashion.
My gut says that you are right. I think the election fraud nonsense suggests it might not be that simple. Bad actors in positions of power are abusing these services to the point where we have real conflict occurring. How do we account for these edge cases?
If it's not illegal, don't censor or moderate it in any way. More speech is better than less speech; Uncensored speech is in fact the antidote to the supposed problems that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. disengenuously claim to be solving.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#119The only reasonable policy is to ban all world leaders from Twitter. As world leaders, they can speak elsewhere. If someone is accused of being a world leader, and you have adequate identification, it's fairly easy to confirm or deny. In the case of a disputed election, maybe both candidates could be considered leaders until the dispute is resolved.
The problem is that ever since banning Trump they have less usage on the site.
So they need those "exciting" world leaders. Telling Twitter to ban all world leaders is the opposite of what they want.
They want to be able to have all those people on there, while not being blamed for leaving "bad" content up.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue. Why did you offer this data?
I guess I will break all of this down for you, since you did ask. 1) Twitter calls for public input on their approach to their handling of accounts of government officials. This individual is a government official and this is an instance of handling their account. 2) Well-timed. They called for this input on March 18th. This instance of account handling is from March 19th, approximately one day later. This makes it "…
This may be all be true[1], but none of it explains your "nothing to see here" trailing remark.
[1] Though there's activity on her account from 15 hours ago. In addition if someone is banned from Twitter, doesn't Twitter take their tweets offline/hide them?