If they delete tweets like that, Twitter gets shit for censoring foreign officials. If they don't delete tweets like that, they get shit for not intervening when the public is obviously put in harm's way. I think they chose the lesser of the two evils. Now, on to censor that umpalumpa you call president.
It's worse than that. He's making a reasonable argument that the public will be put in the way of greater harm by letting the economy collapse. I'd find it pretty hard to say whether he's right or wrong.
However, even if you think he's wrong, this is not an argument being made in bad faith. Censorship is a simply bad way to handle it.
They put themselves in this situation by not evolving their platform into one managed by its community. Instead, they are the gatekeepers of everything with full responsibility but also full access to their users data and therefore ad money.
When organizations like WHO, CDC spread dangerous disinformation like "it's just a flu" or "masks don't help", should Twitter ban these texts as well? Should they ban people saying things that are obviously true (or proven to be true in the future), but go contrary to the statements by these organizations? What if they change their stance every week?
> If they don't delete tweets like that, they get shit for not intervening when the public is obviously put in harm's way.
Nobody voted for twitter to be the protector of the public. That's the job of the elected official. That's why we have elections. If the public suffers, the fault lies with the official, not twitter.
Why bother having elections, democracy, etc. Why not just let twitter and the tech elites rule over us? Zuckerburg, Wojcicki and Dorsey should form a triumvirate and rule over us. Tell us what to think, how to think, when to think, etc.
Is it not a little bit patronising that American companies think they can regulate political speech in Brazil? It's quite clear they don't think they can regulate political speech in the US. What exactly is the difference?
They are not regulating speech in brazil, they are regulating speech on their platform. Bolsonaro can still say whatever he wants in brazil, he just can’t do it on twitter.
> Is it not a little bit patronising that American companies think they can regulate political speech in Brazil?
I'm sure the President of Brazil can manage to find a way to convey his message other than Twitter. Thus it's not like Bolsonaro was placed under a gag order.
If you want to use a third-party service then you comply with the end user agreement presented by the third party. If you don't agree then that's ok, just get one that you're ok with.
> "It's quite clear they don't think they can regulate political speech in the US."
Think again, they DO censor political speech in the US, specifically one side's political speech. This is especially clear for Twitter but also present on many other social media channels.
Will they eventually come for the WHO/CDC/Surgeon General anti-mask tweets? That's the most interesting case for me, when the expert authorities disagree with the facts (and in a very dangerous way) how does twitter decide?
This is not really news. I think what's really notable about all this... situation — is that a lot of stuff that was not ok only a short while ago, is perceived quite calmly by people, because.. well, "it's different", right? This is a serious thing. It's dangerous. You don't want to be dead, right?
It is 9/11 of sorts. Maybe even worse, since you are specifically "not allowed" to question this, because doubting is assumed to be spreading dangerous misinformation. And it's not hard to sell censoring something that supposedly puts lives of your relatives in danger.
Wouldn't it be Orwellian if it was the elected president censoring/redacting people's tweet ?
I'd be on board with Twitter on this one, hoping they use it as a precedent for dealing with the other living policy infringements they have on their platform.
Because putting entire nations under forced house arrest based on the output of computer simulations isn't even slightly sociopathic? It's literally got "social" in the word.
Argue that it's the right choice by all means. To argue that politicians caring about the economy - that thing that also keeps us alive - is "sociopathic", just shows a complete loss of perspective.
[+] [-] osobo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sambe|6 years ago|reply
However, even if you think he's wrong, this is not an argument being made in bad faith. Censorship is a simply bad way to handle it.
[+] [-] dreen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poilcn|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|6 years ago|reply
Nobody voted for twitter to be the protector of the public. That's the job of the elected official. That's why we have elections. If the public suffers, the fault lies with the official, not twitter.
Why bother having elections, democracy, etc. Why not just let twitter and the tech elites rule over us? Zuckerburg, Wojcicki and Dorsey should form a triumvirate and rule over us. Tell us what to think, how to think, when to think, etc.
[+] [-] xfitm3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Traster|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] truculent|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joeri|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rumanator|6 years ago|reply
I'm sure the President of Brazil can manage to find a way to convey his message other than Twitter. Thus it's not like Bolsonaro was placed under a gag order.
If you want to use a third-party service then you comply with the end user agreement presented by the third party. If you don't agree then that's ok, just get one that you're ok with.
[+] [-] hrktb|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomanon|6 years ago|reply
Think again, they DO censor political speech in the US, specifically one side's political speech. This is especially clear for Twitter but also present on many other social media channels.
[+] [-] bobcostas55|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|6 years ago|reply
Political speech should not be censored. Especially of elected officials. It should be regarded as part of the historical record at the very least.
[+] [-] krick|6 years ago|reply
It is 9/11 of sorts. Maybe even worse, since you are specifically "not allowed" to question this, because doubting is assumed to be spreading dangerous misinformation. And it's not hard to sell censoring something that supposedly puts lives of your relatives in danger.
[+] [-] hrktb|6 years ago|reply
I'd be on board with Twitter on this one, hoping they use it as a precedent for dealing with the other living policy infringements they have on their platform.
[+] [-] verytrivial|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] enitihas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnthonBerg|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thu2111|6 years ago|reply
Argue that it's the right choice by all means. To argue that politicians caring about the economy - that thing that also keeps us alive - is "sociopathic", just shows a complete loss of perspective.