Twitter Will Censor Certain Tweets In Certain Countries | Hacker News Reader

Twitter Will Censor Certain Tweets In Certain Countries

readwriteweb.com

122 pointsAnon8465 comments

I'm going to guess this is more about Germany than it is about China

In Germany, Nazi propaganda is illegal. This leaves Twitter with three options when dealing with a user who posts Nazi propaganda:

1. Leave it up, in violation of German law. 2. Delete the user's tweet, even though it is legal in most countries (and blocking it is a violation of the principle of free speech) 3. Block it only in Germany, and make it clear that it has been blocked.

Personally I think 3 is the least-bad option, though obviously others may disagree.

Blocking those tweets is not a violation of the principle of free speech. At least not in the legal sense. Private people and companies suppress speech all the time and that's fine. It's when your government does it that it's very wrong.

It is when they do it because of German government coercion. So it is.

Exactly, Twitter is acting on behalf of Government. That doesn't somehow make it "ok" -- understandable? Yes. But it's not the same thing as a private enterprise deciding they don't want to republish Nazi tweets.

It's a violation in the moral sense, depending of course in your morals. Twitter's image involves the protection if free speech, so it's problematic for them.

It's only a violation in so far as its less of a violation to a persons free speech than blocking the whole service.

Users can be creative with what they want to express with this approach - with no Twitter at all, where is the wiggle room?

Yes, but censorship is a slippery slope to silence and government abuse. Eventually Twitter and/or the People will need to make a stand against tyranny if they feel human rights and free speech are being overly obstructed.

The wiggle room is that maybe, when Twitter, Google and Facebook, and every other company that values free speech (if in fact they actually do) pulls out of their country, the citizens will realize how shitty their laws against free speech actually are, and have them repealed. Twitter may have principles, but they're sacrificing them here in favor of German/Chinese revenue.

So if a Government told a newspaper that they couldn't run an editorial by a guest columnist, that wouldn't be suppressing free speech?

Twitter isn't doing this just for fun, they're doing it because of the policies and laws of the countries in which they operate.

If Twitter told it's users that they couldn't post bad things about Jack Dorsey that would be different.

I'm sympathetic to your point; people are so confused about this issue. If a reporter says something offensive on TV and gets fired as a result, it's not a violation of "free speech". In the present case, though, it is a violation of free speech—not by Twitter, but by the German government. (Good thing, too, as I hear the Nazis are rallying their forces and are on the brink of a comeback.)

What are you trying to say? Germany compels companies to suppress Nazi propaganda in Germany. (I'm assuming, the article isn't that specific.) That is the government telling citizens what they cannot say (e.g. censorship).

The difference between censored speech in Germany (or America: we have limits on free speech, too) and someplace like China is German society has agreed to limit certain offensive speech where as Chinese citizens don't really have a say in the matter.

Yes. At Last.fm, Germany was the first country we had to censor our content in.

If you try and view content which is deemed inappropriate by the German government (fun fact: even the list of inappropriate content is restricted), you get something which looks like this:

http://www.lastfm.de/music/Landser

I believe these pages are still available if you try and visit the English last.fm site from Germany.

With counties bringing in even more restrictions on free speech which contradict each other this will be fun. Take the Armenian genocide for example. Denying it will be a crime in France, but claiming it happened can lead to charges of "insulting Turkishnes" in Turkey (the charges were later dropped against Orhan Pamuk).

That is what happens when a Saudi Prince invests $300m in a tool that could bring an unwanted uprising in his country. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/saudi-prince-invests-...

A useful new web service to complement this would be a site to determine which tweets are censored in which countries and publicly log them for convenient searching and analysis.

Twitter reports this information to http://www.chillingeffects.org/. I think this is what you're describing.

The low bar for tweets to be taken down can be seen on their database already:

simply mentioning that TPB can be used to download movies: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=...

claiming someone used your copyrighted photo as an avatar: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=...

We have contacted piratebay.com as well.

Yeah, good luck with that. https://thepiratebay.org/legal

That's incredible.

Even though I don't like it a bit that they're yielding to censorship, they did the best thing you can do when forced to censor: stay transparent about it. Provide a public API.

Same with the subpoenas: They were forced to give away the user's information, couldn't help that, but they did notify those users, and publish the subpoena.

Despite claims, Twitter is certainly not evil and secretive here.

Here's the new API for withheld content:

  "text": "@chatty's account is withheld in: Greece, Hong Kong, Malaysia,.",
  "withheld_scope": "user",
  "withheld_in_countries": "GR, HK, MY",

https://dev.twitter.com/blog/new-withheld-content-fields-api...

They can't even block the most idiotic kind of spam[1], and now they will get this magic NLP working? Ha.

[1] @reply tweets from newly created accounts.

Seriously, the spammers aren't even using new messages (bar the infamous @Horse_ebooks). Just ban people saying that exact message with that exact spam URL.

I don't follow. Could you point to where it mentioned NLP in the article?

It's not on the article, I implied it because I thought they were going to censor content automatically.

It's not an automatic censoring. The country sends a request to Twitter.

So does this mean they'll only censor them in a certain country when that country's government asks them to do it, or also when the US Government asks them to censor them in that country?

A country can only ask Twitter to censor the information in that country. For example, if Germany doesn't want the German people see pro-Nazi content, they can ask Twitter to censor it in that country. Twitter will then report it in to http://www.chillingeffects.org/.

The German government doesn't have to ask twitter. Twitter would be breaking the law in Germany to publish it. It's not a request.

Note how twitter did not do anything as a SOPA protest, unlike Google or Wikipedia. They are a (any) government-aligned company, and they probably enjoy unusually close ties with FBI and CIA (their role in the Arab Spring would ensure that for example).

Seems like a shortsighted move, given the perception in developed Western countries that Twitter is a tool for fomenting freedom.

I think many of these companies are looking at the very real possibility that being relegated to being a 'Western Country Company' may not be the best financial strategy long term.

That said...Twitter is too late. I don't think many Chinese young people will switch at this point. They have already missed the boat on micro blogging in China, they should at least keep their ideals...now they will keep their ideals and won't get the Chinese market anyway.

Although when I consider the matter more fully...the world is bigger than China. Some of those other nations may be important markets going forward...and they may have some censorship laws Twitter would have to deal with. Indonesia will probably be the second most important nation in Asia in the future, and I think Twitter hasn't lost yet in places like that. And Indonesia probably has things you can and cannot say.

What they need to do is identify all flagged tweets to everyone, either with a "this tweet was blocked by censors in your country" or with a "this tweet is blocked for users in Iran at the request of censors".

According to the link from this post by dantheman[0], the Twitter API will make this data available.

[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3516483

This is weird. Freedom shouldn't be the price you pay to operate in any country. Is it passe to push American ideals abroad.

No, but when it comes down to "Censor stuff when asked" or "Don't bother setting up shop at all", any rational person would take option #1.

So let's see, you're Google, and you want to set up your search engine in China.

"Not so fast" says the local big cheeses. "You have to censor search results in compliance with laws X Y and Z. If you do not, your employees will be jailed and you will be shut down."

As a Chinese citizen, which is the best result?

Let's do a very simple payoff matrix.

Outcome A: Google avoids China altogether

Outcome B: Google opens in China and complies with the law

Outcome C: Google opens in China and does not comply with the law

      Google     Chinese Citizen
 A      0               0
 B      1               1
 C      -1              0

Only option B leaves all parties better than they started out.

I see your point, but it's a little simplistic. By opening and complying with the law you are to a certain extent validating or condoning that law. By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent takes pressure off the Chinese government.

>By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent takes pressure off the Chinese government.

How do you figure that? A search engine company in the united states probably isn't in the best position to be dictating foreign policy. Any "pressure" they could exert (on China, especially) by saying "We're staying away due to your crappy laws" is minimal at best.

Besides, they already left due to (ostensibly) government agents trying to hack into their systems.

But in actuality Google decided B was a mistake, and has switched to A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/23/google-chin...

Yes, but it is worse off because of it.

Also it was already getting trounced by competition (Baidu).

Google in china was like Bing is in the west. The search engine you know, but never use. :P

Actually Google decided A was a mistake, and has switched to C: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/google-china-busine...

Gosh, I would have written

      Google         Freedom
 A      0               1
 B      1               -1
 C      -1              1

How does a new search engine complying with existing laws impact "freedom" (a nebulous concept) in any meaningful way?

Because US propaganda has got it into peoples heads that "Free-Speech"* = "Freedom"+

Glasshouses, stones, kettles and pots are all coming to mind :P

* Where free speech, is "Free" by US law. And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

+ Where freedom is the same brand of Freedom™ that the US promotes/enjoys(?)

> And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

Pretty sure free speech does not, has not, and never has or will apply to military secrets that one takes an oath to keep when they join the military.

Let's get one thing straight. Manning is a hero in my book.. but there is no question what so ever that he broke the law (and his oath). The debate comes in to what we do with him because of what he did.

Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part.

If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move further up the chain to Wikileaks. The point is still valid. It isn't Free Speech, is just 'mostly' free unless you impinge on a more powerful interest... oh wait, that isn't free.

It sounds like you're pointing to a definition of "free" that doesn't include exceptions for incitement, classified information, etc.

It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.

> It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.

Reference? Why is it unworkable?

You somehow expect a world without any secrets of any kind to function?

You somehow expect a world where governments lie to it's own people to function?

(Not only that, you seem to accept that governments lying is fine, but exposing those lies is a violation of free speech...???)

How does equating rationality with profit-maximization further this discussion in any meaningful way?

Because in this case, they're one in the same?

Option D: Google opens their Chinese office outside of PRC, and embraces circumvention technology.

This is the Internet, you don't have to open a physical office in every market. Censoring services for the whims of every government just dilutes your brand.

This is a corporation. For one, it's incredibly inefficient to set up infrastructure outside of where you're operating. For two, how hard do you think it would be for the great firewall to just block whatever IP's they operate from?

Google.cn being accessible from tor might be a neat idea in theory, but it's infeasible (and just a little bit silly) from a real world perspective where you have to account for your cash and actions.

It's not really fair to say "any rational person would take option #1," as a rational person could also make the decision that they'd rather not be party to supporting censorship.

It would've helped if Google convinced other companies to join them if they don't lower their censorship requests.

That is indeed a very simple matrix.

Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term, contribute to relax Chinese censorship laws and bolster freedom in that country. Chinese Citizen: 100.

I think you greatly overestimate the amount of "pressure" a single company can exert on China, of all places.

I can't hardly overestimate something I didn't make an estimation of.

Oh FFS.

>Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term

You did type this, yes?

Yes. Where is the amount, extent, position, size, or value of the pressure exerted on China, that I estimated too highly?

The fact that there is any pressure whatsoever. Of all the countries in the world, China is the most able (from an economic and political standpoint) to tell a western company to take their service and shove it.

That's a very shallow view of how the non-autarkic part of the world (to which China certainly belongs) works, China's recent history and the influence of the "cocacolonization" effect. Stating it exerts no pressure whatsoever is an extraordinary claim.

So they will publish the tweets they censor, eh? Idea:

1. Check the list. Get @username and text of censored tweet.

2. Mirror the tweet.

3. Lookup followers of @username

4. Send followers a tweet with link to censored tweet of the @user.

This will start an arms race. Twitter will censor all tweets which link to websites in (2), and start censoring all tweets from users who do (4). Solution:

2. Make Wordpress plugin which mirrors censored list on people's blog. Encourage wordpress users to install this plugin.

4. Encourage twitter users to authorize you to use their accounts to retweet links to censored tweets.

Thoughts?

The fact that law depends on which position on this planet you stay is ridiculous.

I vote that every single law is trashed and new laws are written completely from scratch. Based on universial human rights. Without discriminating anyone without a valid reason (e.g. the person is not aware of risks causing by this or that action)

Maybe there were some strings attached to $300m investment by Saudis

Reply on news.ycombinator.com