They're trying to get me kidnapped and tortured, but Twitter doesn't care

First of all, why would an authoritarian government want an impartial moderating office for media in their country? If anything, I expect Pakistan to soon demand government control over censoring Twitter, not the other way arpund.

Second of all, Twitter is a bit player in media. Comparing it to McDonald's is absurd. If we were talking about Facebook, this may be a different matter.

Third of all, government relation to media is significantly different to government's relationship to beef. There is no government in the world that wants a bad beef industry, but many many governments that actively want a biased media industry, and are more than willing to sacrifice monetary concerns to achieve this goal. Countries much smaller (at least in population) than Pakistan have actively kicked out platforms like Twitter - see Russia for example.

I will say it again: it is not realistic to expect a foreign media platform to fight government propaganda inside an authoritarian country. Twitter is not the BBC or Reuters, and even those places don't often try to publish in authoritarian countries.

I don't think Twitter needs to assess what is true or not, but it can try to find ways to know the source and make sure they're not bad actors, paid agents, state sponsors, etc.

For example, OP mentions how they never allowed him to have a verified badge even though he tried. This very much seems like something Twitter could have done. Now to anyone else, his account seems just as fake as any other impersonating him.

It could also put more effort behind investigating reports like the OP did. And it could also have detection and review processes for any kind of tweet that could be defaming. Accusation of criminal acts, labeling of people, mention of violence, arrest, etc.

Finally, this is the Web 3 era, who knows what mechanism it could find to innovate on that front.

The issue I have with what you say is the ideal communication medium ignores the issues with Twitter, such that it doesn't just simply convey content without regard. It selectively prioritizes, automatically suggests, and promotes certain tweets over others. It also gives very little recourse to people receiving the content to do their own due diligence, or to people who are targeted by the tweets to have a means to provide their counterpoint to the same audience, unless they themselves are just as powerful an actor.

You could imagine a relatively simple feature, any Tweet that mentions someone else by name or Twitter alias, that person should be able to attach a response to them that is shown under those tweets automatically. Twitter wouldn't need to choose the truth, but it gives recourse and mechanisms for the process of truth seeking to take place and for the people being shown the tweet more context and therefore better means to make up their own mind.

The corporation's minimum burden is to follow the law and abide by court orders.

That doesn't mean a corporation should be exempt from criticism when it does the wrong thing despite fulfilling that minimum burden. Laws are inadequate, and have loopholes.

Example: A corporation could literally make it its mission to funnel all profits into buying dirty coal and burning it for no reason whatsoever. There's nothing illegal about this in many countries.

  "They should immediately act on takedown notices, for example in the case of revenge porn, but are not a private replacement for law enforcement."

They don't immediately act on such notices. That's part of the problem. They've pushed their customer service division onto the taxpayers of rich countries. And they've outright screwed the people on poor countries (Myanmar?) that have no recourse.

Twitter can not care about that. It is just a platform.

> The source article doesn't say that anyone has stalked him, surveilled him, or threatened him. His complaints are that someone said he's "inciting violence" when that's not an accurate characterization of his perspective, and that someone said he works for an organization he doesn't work for. In the US neither of these things are a big deal and could not be a criminal issue.

No. I'm the one who said he is being stalked.

> In Pakistan, activists and journalists are routinely picked up (abducted) and tortured by the country's police and secret services. Same happened this time, some of the top journalists and anchors were picked up - some without warrants with fake cases filed post-arrest. Some of these journalists remain under custody till date. These journalists, according to reports, have been stripped and tortured under custody.

> The current Minister for Planning and Development falsely accused me of inciting violence, probably in the hopes of building a false case and narrative against me, when I had only called for people to question their politicians. These people were showing their frustration because I was out of their reach and could not be abducted for the time being. What came from the Minister was maybe an exaggeration or a veiled threat, but what started happening after was more insidious. To start off their harassment campaign against me,

He is definitely being threatened and stalked. It's the abuse of the parody account to defame the OP. That would be all fine and good if not for the regular disappearing of Pakistani journalists and protesters. If anything like this happened in the US, let's say the KKK started disappearing journalists and protesters, once that kind of environment existed, any sort of online shenanigans spotlighting private individuals, slandering and defaming them, if it regularly happened to the disappeared before they disappeared, then it would be a very big deal, investigated, prosecuted, with felonies and significant jail time delivered, even without that particular victim being kidnapped or murdered.