Twitter “Silenced” Dissenting Voices During Protests in Egypt: Research
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
"The following media includes potentially sensitive content" for content like https://twitter.com/encrier/status/1188067004240019456 Which translates to
* Retrieve people's money
* Resignation of government
* New parliament
Thank you Twitter for "protecting" me from being offended.
EDIT: I've been getting very angry everytime I see demands for censorship on social media, it's like people forgot they had their own revolution at some point and really needed to communicate what was happening to make it a reality.
Users sometimes mark their tweets sensitive when they believe it may attract controversy, not just when it is genuinely disturbing.
Content is dumbed down everywhere because you can only post things on these platforms which are compatible with advertisers. Big brands don't want to see their ads alongside someone's fringe opinions, thus they have to punish the "bad" content to appease their customers.
Politicians will change but this type of thing rarely comes back after it’s being given away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
No one seems to understand that the monster they want to replace modern society with will consume them first.
Any major revolution, once properly entrenched, targets those who started the revolution.
Buddy please read the damn poem. It was about "modern society" purging itself of the kind of people you are criticizing.
The quote isn't relevant from a "the socialists will be the first to go" perspective. Its relevant from a "the ideologies that fuel revolution will be the first to go".
Also, I'm not seeking to criticize anyone. My goal is to point out that revolution is ugly business that often (not always) eats its own.
"Revolutionary" is a word I would reserve for people I agree with, but it should be noted that the Nazis purged their own ranks. "Political enemies" and "their own ranks" are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Rather, the later is a subset of the former.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
(Note also that poet in question was originally a Nazi, until he realized he'd be targeted by them too.)
I see this confusion a lot, and I don’t understand it. North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and its clearly not democratic. China claims to be communist when they’re not.
The socialist party in Germany began with socialists. Then, when Hitler and Co. had concentrated enough power, their original constituents became liabilities and thus political enemies.
[edit]
I'm curious to know if the downvotes are because I'm not adding anything substantive? Or if they are happening because someone disagrees with what I am saying?
Am I incorrect in my assertions?
[/edit]
I think you're overthinking the "Socialist" in the NSDAP's name. Their ideas weren't exactly compatible with mainstream Socialism.
Three choice quotes near each other Robespierre's Wikipedia page:
* In July he was appointed as a member of the powerful Committee of Public Safety.
* Robespierre is best known for his role during the "reign of Terror"
* Robespierre was eventually brought down by his obsession with the vision of an ideal republic and his indifference to the human costs of installing it. The Terror ended with Robespierre's arrest on 9 Thermidor and his execution on the day after.
As a rule, revolutionaries are simply not the sort of people who are best left in charge.
Blaming advertising gets tiresome. It is a device, not the cause, of "dumbing down" of Western discourse and curtailing of free political speech.
If you insist that it is "advertising" that is the cause of this malaise, then you must agree that "advertising" is not compatible with modern free democtratic societies and needs to be made illegal.
That's a leap. A quote that's always stuck with me: "It's important to recognise one of the catastrophist's rhetorical moves: Stories of doom thrive on turning a tension into an incompatibility."
It's more useful to think of the conversation we're having as the ongoing negotiation of a long-standing tension, with social media providing a new wrinkle.
It could be the "setting the tone" minority (pundits, influencers, journalists, etc) Overton window...
We've seen from CNN and Google that their views don't match society at large, and they're happy to use their positions of influence to "correct" society.
That's what caused CNN's ratings to collapse, and Google to face both a lawsuit (PragerU) and investigation (from Congress).
Did either stop them? Of course not -- they know better than you!
(If anyone wonders why my posts are dead -- it's because HN employs the same kind of Overton censorship, under the guise of policing tone.)
Quazi-dictatorships are excellent at supressing minority thought. Majority rule countries will have no problem with Twitter.
It's a form of Strategy of Tension.
More laws(rules to follow) is not a fix, that's the brier patch. I think many of the problems go back to copyright law if one games it out; limiting exposure to necessary information. Even obtaining news footage archives is difficult. Removing their ability to prevent re-broadcast would fix many things. Tip-toeing around on fair use is a serious limit on critical speech.
> Like FB it's a preception managment platform, they dont need to be honest or even pretend to be neutral.
If it's a platform (and platforms, IMHO, go against the very spirit of the Internet), then they should be forced by law to be neutral.
Algorithmic censorship, and demand for it, is the problem. However, that has nothing to do with Overton windows. The issue is the prioritization of recall over all else. Various groups (e.g., popular outcry, Legal) demand that as much actual abusive content as possible be flagged and suppressed or removed. In their view, falsely flagging content is acceptable collateral damage as long as the real bad stuff gets caught as well.
The precision in classification isn't there to enforce an Overton window even if that was the goal.
What I don't get is this sort of discourse on a site filled with developers. If you don't like the established platforms, why don't you just create your own? The entire end-to-end vision of the Internet is still alive and well.
Also, I think we distract ourselves when we blame "advertisers" for censorship. After all the top advertisers in the US are also the major media players - Comcast, AT&T, P&G, Disney, Charter, Verizon.
https://www.adbrands.net/us/top-us-advertisers.htm
So these media companies use their massive platforms to manipulate and control the public, they also use their advertising money to manipulate and control ( indirectly and directly ).
It isn't "advertisers", it is major mass media companies trying to control and influence new media. As has always happened, whether it is cable, radio, telegraph, etc.
But now it appears new media has become as bad as traditional media but with more influence and less competition.
I don't understand why twitter still exists.
Didn't Twitter and other social media platforms lay claim to "helping" voice and organize the people to protest and revolt during the Arab Spring? I remember them being pretty proud of that.
Users pile on with the “OMG yes this. This. This!” or “I don’t know why people like this exist “ and the rest of the crew are there to nod their heads.
There’s no discussion on Twitter. It’s either pats on the back or one liner screaming matches.
I was thinking that if I wanted every critic of mine to shut up I could say I identify as a female and then get them all banned for misgendering me if they ever referred to me as he/him :P
It's easy enough to have happen if you disagree with certain groups of extremely online people and they take a personal disliking, so it would certainly be within the power of any mildly capable security agency.