[iridium_core]

The tweet might be disagreeable, but it is still an important statement from a foreign Government. Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'.

[alpaca128]

The problem is that there's no middleground. Either you don't play the "ministry of information" role and have to live with the fact that eventually your platform will turn into a more chaotic 4chan, or you start removing particularly excessive content at which point you crossed the only line that can be clearly defined.

This is one of the reasons I think old-school forums are superior in terms of "web hygiene". You have a group of moderators, each responsible for a clearly defined section and a userbase small enough so rules are still enforceable. And the people running it are not an untouchable megacorporation.

[fvdessen]

Since this tweet comes from the chinese embassy of the USA, it seems to me that this is diplomatic matters and should be handled by the government. For example the USA government could apply diplomatic sanctions to the embassy if they do not delete the tweet. I find it very strange that the twitter moderation team is acting in stead of the foreign affairs department.

[eznzt]

>your platform will turn into a more chaotic 4chan

You might be surprised to know most 4chan boards are very tightly moderated.

[farseer]

The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women and is presenting the results as "emancipation". This isn't disagreeable, its monsterous and diabolical. The same limits that apply to serial killers presenting their handiwork on twitter apply here as well.

[himinlomax]

I'd rather have this not censored and for the whole world to see than swept under the rug.

Censorship is not a solution, it's the problem. Both in China and in Silicon Valley.

[w14]

If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged?

In this case the fact the tweet was taken down made headlines, but if censorship like this is becoming the norm, as it looks like it is, then these issues potentially get no exposure or discussion.

That seems more dangerous to me.

[wazoox]

> The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women

Do you have the slightest evidence for this? Census data shows that Uighur population doubled in the past 30 years, because this population hasn't been subjected to the "one child policy" among other things.

This is a war of propaganda, from both side. None is particularly more believable than the other. proceed with caution.

[mech422]

They agreed to the TOS like everyone else...

If people don't want 'big tech' to be 'Ministry of Information' stop using them as such? The Chinese government has plenty of channels they could use instead.

[Udik]

How did the tweet violate the TOS exactly?

[leereeves]

What channels could they use instead?

[brighton36]

No one reads the tos. Clicks are not agreements.

[pjc50]

The problem with this statement is that there's a literal "ministry of information" involved, in the Orwellian sense of a controlling censor, and it's the Chinese government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Industry_and_Infor...

[altfredd]

Orwell's book actually described 3 super-states, all of which share same ideology and, presumably, have their own "ministries of truth".

[eightysixfour]

Did you have a problem with Twitter banning ISIS propaganda pages and recruiters?

[himinlomax]

I have a problem with people who believe this propaganda had any net effect, except for railing up some people (which probably was the intent.)

[mc32]

Do you have a problem with Twitter banning foreign enemies?

[emptyparadise]

Instead of policing what Twitter can and can't allow on its website, we should look at the root of the issue: the global public square should not be controlled by a single corporation.

[YarickR2]

The root of the issue is there should be no single global public square

[brown9-2]

which single company controls the global public square?

[nabla9]

Principled response: Twitter should ban completely ban foreign governments who don't allow free speech for their citizens.

[Pfhreak]

That'd ban everyone. Is there a country that permits fully free speech? Certainly not the US. What about Germany?

So now you are back in the position of making a judgement call about whose laws permit free enough speech. There's no black and white line to draw here.

[eplanit]

But banning domestic users for their free speech is ok?

[YarickR2]

define "free speech". Or you arr using it in the USA sense ?

[consumer451]

> Twitter has no right to be 'Ministry of Information'.

Twitter did not prevent them from stating anything. Twitter employees simply decided they want to have no part in this. Are you saying they should be forced to publish this tweet?

The logic here escapes me.

[Fellshard]

They did not publish the tweet. They provided the tools for the tweet to be published. There is a distinction, as they had no hand in the act of creating the tweet itself.

[plasticxme]

Twitter is a private sector business in the US with terms that include reserving the right to remove any content for any reason. They have every right to.

If you don’t agree with it, for moral reasons or otherwise, you’re free to provide your own service.

[BlueTemplar]

Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse.

I'm willing to bet that it's going to be amended, just like the EU version of it was.

Consider this precedent :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

> The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

[_-david-_]

Parler tried to start their own service and look what is happening to them.

[bigpumpkin]

They sure have the right to. But I also have the right to criticize their decision.

[brighton36]

Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.

[undersuit]

Yes they do!

https://twitter.com/en/tos

>By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).

[nitwit005]

The newspapers and TV news stations also won't publish the most offensive statements from foreign leaders (or even local ones) either.

You could possibly argue that things like email or telephones won't censor people, but if foreign governments tried regularly calling us to send propaganda, they'd get blocked.

[Miner49er]

I agree. I'd rather Twitter ban people then just arbitrarily remove random tweets. It's not like the tweets aren't still out there somewhere. They just have decided they don't want the average person to be able to see them.

[perennate]

A ministry of information would jail and possibly harvest the organs of those sending the information. As far as I know, Twitter has not arrested and harvested the organs of anyone working in the embassy.

[turbonoobie]

I agree, but this needs to be sorted with regulation, and not blaming Twitter for doing bad when they're able to do what they want on their platform.

[dna_polymerase]

It's not Twitter's fault that they are your only source of information. You can go elsewhere, they are a private company and owe you jack-shit.

[hombre_fatal]

That's not completely true. We (society) allow these corporations to exist and make money off of us, so there's a worthwhile discussion to have about what should be done about corporations that don't hold our values.

[8note]

Twitter is definitionally a ministry of truth. They can show every tweet to everyone, so they have to pick and choose who sees what tweets.

Any sorting or recommendation algorithm makes a choice about what ideas should be signal boosted and which ones should be hidden.

You visit twitter to see twitter's take on what's important

[refurb]

This is what I said a year ago. You can’t moderate speech and come out the other side looking like a hero. You will only come be hated by everyone.

[evgen]

Better to be hated by everyone than counted among the nazis. You can moderate speech, but the first step is to stop caring about the opinions of the chattering classes such as is found on HN (or on Twitter for that matter.)

[IkmoIkmo]

They're not, but they can be ministry of their terms and conditions, which don't allow blatant propaganda posts (regardless of whether it's from a citizen or from a government representative) that claim victims of forced sterilisation are simply emancipating and choosing to have fewer children as an explanation for dropping birth rates.

China is free to publish its nonsense on its own channels. why should Twitter agree to be a propaganda platform for China?

Twitter can't police every post, but if a post gets a million views and is a blatant lie about human rights abuses, it's a bit silly to argue they should let that slide because it's an 'important statement from a foreign government'.

If the NYT tweets about this statement, and attaches the proper context based on generally accepted standards of proper journalism, it wouldn't have been an issue. You can talk about things without being a propaganda piece. Hitler advertising in the NYT in the WW2 shouldn't be accepted. Journalists writing about something Hitler said and putting it in the context (i.e., mentioning the human rights abuses), is fine. Apologies for the obligatory nazi reference but it makes explaining the principe so much easier, even if China isn't as bad.

[gxnxcxcx]

The obligation to apologize for nazi references in one's rhetoric went out the window the moment actual nazis started getting mainstreamed into politics again.

[tomc1985]

They have every right because they are a private corporation. Joke's on China if they think they can post freely without being questioned.

There are not enough people holding the Chinese government's nose to the shit they're dropping.