> Violent Groups.
We will start suspending accounts for organizations that use violence to advance their cause.
Surely this is just the spirit of the rule and not the literal definition? Or will all nation states be suspended from Twitter?
Surely this is just the spirit of the rule and not the literal definition? Or will all nation states be suspended from Twitter?
Now both corrupt and moral alike can be clamped down by these rules. Who will be the arbiter of what is considered a "violent organisation" and what is considered fair? Are "freedom fighters" on the side of good exempt from these suspensions or are twitter now simply too much part of the establishment to care for the next revolutions?
I can understand that twitter absolutely need to clamp down on spread of hate-speech and the spread of horrendous videos such as those that were produced by ISIS/ISIL for propaganda and recruitment purposes. But vague rules leads to selective enforcement which could be worrying for free speech and democracy in future.
ISIS videos are what people are using to sell these policies. In reality, a lot of mainstream political speech in the US and EU will be censored by these policies. This is not an accident. Social media has succeeded too well in allowing normal plebians to spread ideas the ruling classes find distasteful.
Such as?
What about the rise of the right in the EU? What about "undesired" stories about actual problems, large and small scale, caused by migrants? Pretty important topic, I would think, yet we already have communities self censoring all over the internet, what is stopping twitter from applying these laughably nebulous rules to hide a side of discussion on this topic too?
Here, just look at it in its entirety:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
Case in point: "And I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white supremacists, because they should be condemned totally"
Moving back. Political speech, commentary, opinions and debate need to be uncensored entirely, no exceptions, if you are to have a democratic society. Otherwise, you're just thought-policing people into thinking/acting into the norm. Sure, harassing someone over a political view won't fall under that, but the key qualifier there is "harassing". I'd go so-far as to say that any platform that is open to the public needs to be punished for silencing any sort of political speech. That is undemocratic, for lack of a better word. Because it shuts-down general debate.