Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Who defines what is considered terrorism and what isn't? Once censorship infrastructure is in place, it will get abused.
Or you completely flip the analogy and say that this is Twitter refusing to not speak out and do nothing, while the Nazi's are coming for people on Twitter.
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I'd actually prefer them shitposting on twitter rather than killing people.
Also, if someone got on a soapbox outside your house and starting preaching violence I don't think you'd be celebrating the exercising of their rights - you'd probably call the police.
Sure, except
> The company is balancing a commitment to free speech against pressure from policymakers who want to see social media companies do more to fight extremism and hate speech.
> [...]
> Twitter last year signed a voluntary pledge in Europe to take action within 24 hours against reports of racist, xenophobic and violent content.
It seems the pressure is comming from policy makers, not the house owners.
I think you'll find that most people in society would support the motion to attempt to reduce extremism and hate speech. It's not a controversial issue nor do I in any way feel it's trampling on any rights I have.
And do you not believe that Twitter has the right to Freedom of Speech and Association as well?
In fact, no.
The tweets are valuable propaganda to ISIS.
They are consumed by billions of young impressionable minds all over the world, inducing them to 'take up the cause'.
ISIS does not have the right to 'free speech'.
Stopping ISIS from spreading their selfie vids of how they burned people alive and 'You can too!' - is not controversial.
The vague, shifting notion of what constitutes "terrorism" and how that definition may be abused in the future, is.
Consider, if you will, what a modern-day Sedition Act of 1918 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 ) would look like.
It does however provide a window into some of their recruitment behavior, as these types of outlets are the easiest places to lure vulnerable or impressionable people into deeper, darker corners of their propaganda networks. But I have to imagine that if you were to shut off their ability to lure people there in the first place it would do more to fight them than watching and following them.
I disagree - are you saying access to a social network like Twitter should be a human right?
Then they came for doxxing...
Then they came for revenge porn...
As the EU gains more power, they'll pressure American firms to conform to their laws. Since the firms have EU headquarters, they will. If the American firms wore that mantle with pride (and paid the taxes that go with it), the EU could only ban them from having their sites accessible by EU citizens. Not even the EU would go so far as to do that. Sadly, Twitter et al traded their Constitution for coin.
The very fact that we are discussing the enterprise limiting speech does show it's arguable. I say it should be argued. Further, I say that comments such as yours, while I'm fine with you stating it, serves only to act as slight of hand that limits speech.
In the current world, though, I find free speech arguments in this context to be alarmist because Twitter isn't the only channel for public discourse, and this specific case (shutting down jihadist accounts) seems like a less flagrant act of corporate censorship than, say, Apple banning iOS apps that warn civilians of drone attacks. It just seems like there are worthier incidents to get outraged about, but people like to choose certain targets of outrage because it suits their tastes. Hacker slacktivism is as annoying as any other kind.
I'll bet may salary that the folks at Twitter have no problem deleting ISIS accounts, and would do it irrespective of any impetus from the US Gov.
And the Europeans are considerably more strict on this - they have severe surveillance laws. Sweden inspects every single packet coming in and out of Sweden.
Also - consider the fact that Twitter bans accounts all the time for some really basic stuff. People have been banned for not much, the bar is not high.
The right to forget is a great example. Sure, its "against the free speech of Google" but it's decidedly for the people being spoken about IMO.
2) From a purely theoretical standpoint I agree, it does occupy an interesting place. If the monarchy ever did try to exercise any of its powers it possesses outside of delegation it would trigger a consisting crisis that would mean they would be immediately stripped of such powers.
I mean, the Queen technically has all the powers of state and those are granted "at will" (air quotes) to the prime minister and other officials. If she ever woke up and decided to declare war, strip parliament of its authority or execute a few commoners what would happen?
Whoever the regional / world power at the time is.
There were organizations on Britain's terror list that have been absorbed into the new country's defense forces gaining sovereign immunity and employing the same practices as before, and I'm not referring to the United States.
The goal of any terrorism is sovereign immunity. Its not the worst bet people have made.