Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Can Now Block Tweets In Specific Countries

itwbennett writes "In a blog post on Thursday, Twitter announced that it can now block individual Tweets in specific countries, while leaving them visible in other countries. 'We try to keep content up whenever and wherever we can, and we will be transparent with users when we can't,' the blog said. Twitter will publish requests it receives to block content through its partnership with Chilling Effects."

151 comments

  1. Lovely by the+Dragonweaver · · Score: 2

    A brilliant means of censorship. Gotta love Big Brother.

    --
    Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
    1. Re:Lovely by davester666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or third world countries. They just outright block Twitter, Facebook, whatever and everybody knows it.

      This is for North America, Europe and Asia [China/Japan], so their governments/industry partners can silently kill specific things without people readily knowing about it. So you still have the appearance of free speech, without actually having it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Guns, Germs and Steel gave a convincing account of this disparity. In brief, Africa has neither the domesticated grains nor the farmland nor the domesticable animals that Europe enjoyed. Given the minute genetic differences between the two cultures, the only sensible conclusion is that Europe was more advantageous for humans to settle in, as I'm sure you would agree even today. Africa is a piece of shit, Africans just have to live there.

      But you only look for confirming evidence for your bigotry. I hope you get assraped by a thick black cock.

    3. Re:Lovely by Endovior · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or third world countries.

      Duh. Those are full of spear-chuckin niggers, dune coons, and other undesirables. I really like the name spear-chucker. It works. It fits. The white man invented sailing ships and sailed the globe and found the black man. Not the fucking other way around. For a reason. That is why blacks are inferior. This is not a few people vs a few people. This is much bigger than a statistically significant sample size. This is a whole people, tens upon tens of millions, over thousands of years .. vs a whole people, tens upon tens of millions, even more thousands of years. If all early human ancestors were from Africa than the fucking niggers had even more time than the white man. But they are the primitives. What does that tell you? They fail at life. They are spear chuckers. They are tribal and savage and always will be except the white man found them. They sold each other into slavery too so don't even start with that shit. Oh and all white people have ancestors who were once slaves so again don't bother with that bullshit, it only works on the government educated masses not on me.

      Wow. Racist of the year award goes to this man. Why did Europe 'discover' Africa, and not vice-versa? Guns, Germs, and Steel: look it up. The macrohistorical advancement of a 'race' has more to do with geography, climate, and natural resources than anything else, and if you don't believe that, it's because you're an idiot.

    4. Re:Lovely by Foxhoundz · · Score: 1

      The fact that you would spew all this on a liberal leaning tech blog means you're either oblivious of the internet or you are what my generation would dub as a "troll". Enjoy your -1.

    5. Re:Lovely by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      so their governments/industry partners can silently kill specific things without people readily knowing about it.

      If they actually do post it on chilling-effects, it won't be very silent.

      Besides, what are they going to do, block the tweets for the latest hate-gazm from the Newt and Romster? They aren't going to be able to stop OWS from organizing just from blocking twitter.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Lovely by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      Racist of the year award goes to this man. Why did Europe 'discover' Africa, and not vice-versa?

      It was the 'discovered Africa' thing that tipped you off that he/she was racist? Not the word nigger, dune coons, or undesirables? I'm just trying to help you here when I say, you might want to work on understanding the underlying meaning behind sentences, because you missed some big ones there.

      I'd even go so far as to say he was being racist on purpose.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome to your hate-filled, ignorant vitriolic rant, but I'll bet you can't play the guitar as well as this black man!

    8. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will all come down to content and copyright issues. For instance, I'm currently enjoying US Netflix content while living in the UK thanks to a tip off on Twitter. That's exactly the kind of thing the companies with time and money to waste policing this will be looking for.

    9. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's posted this is the wrong tab open in his browser. He meant to post it in the one with /b/ in the tab title!

    10. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it all ;/

    11. Re:Lovely by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Not at all!

      Twitter can block tweets in some countries but the country could block twitter anyway. Superficially it appears that twitter is cooperating, but what do we know about censorship on the internet?

      This will only silence an actual tweet, if nobody in the world is sufficiently incensed by the censorship. As soon as a tweet is blocked, it will be retweeted like crazy, as well as mirrored on countless websites. It effectively neuters censorship.

    12. Re:Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This website isn't a "blog".

    13. Re:Lovely by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      This is for North America, Europe and Asia [China/Japan], so their governments/industry partners can silently kill specific things without people readily knowing about it. So you still have the appearance of free speech, without actually having it.

      This would be trivially easy to test. Hell, it'd be trivially easy to *block*:

      1) Set up a bunch of VPNs/proxies in every country.

      2) Suspect a link has been "disappeared"? Copy/paste it into this magic website.

      3) Website reads and returns the text of the tweets from each country with an error message for those who blocked it.

      It's be a pretty great barometer for how much of a shithole your country is when it comes to freedom of speech.

    14. Re:Lovely by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Actually... in a way that one part of what he said does have some truth. Note... he said white people discovered black, not Europe discovered Africa. Early people migrated from Africa to Europe, thus Africa discovered Europe but people would have continued to change on both continents. Do we even know what color those original people were? Thus when people reconnected again it was white people discovering black people.

      The rest of the post of course is just hateful BS. So what if Europeans of a certain era took to the seas at a time when Africans were not? There was much time before that when Europeans could have built ships but didn't. It was far more likely a social coincidence and that caused things to happen when they did then any actual evolutionary advantage. The difference genetically between supposed races is less than that between individuals of the same race! Not to mention the fact that Africans were building ships and traveling to far places long before Europe and Africa regained contact. There is some evidence they may have made it all the way from Ghanna to South America! This is however currently unproven.

    15. Re:Lovely by tepples · · Score: 1

      It was far more likely a social coincidence and that caused things to happen when they did

      And this social coincidence allowed Europeans to reach milestones toward industrialisation (as they spell it) before sub-Saharans did.

      Africans were building ships and traveling to far places long before Europe and Africa regained contact.

      Interesting. Have you any links about this?

    16. Re:Lovely by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      This isn't for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or third world countries.

      Go try telling that to Arab activists (eg: Iyad ElBaghdadi). They are livid about this. There appears to be a "blackout" boycott effort being organized for tomorrow.

    17. Re:Lovely by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "If Twitter does remove a tweet, users in the country in which it was removed will see a grayed-out tweet in their timeline that says a message from an identified user has been withheld." So no it won't silently kill specific things. And yes you still have free speech, but the consitution doesn't say you have to use Twitter for your free speech.

  2. Oh noes by Osgeld · · Score: 0, Troll

    Some guy in *insert dictatorship here* wont get the latest update from my fart detecting chair!

  3. About Respecting Sovereignty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with censorship. It's about a company respecting other countries laws and their sovereignty. A lot of other countries do not hold the same western values of free speech as the rest of us. Why can't some people respect that?

    Their countries, their laws. If companies want to do business there or not be blocked, they should respect them. I applaud Twitter on taking this step.

    1. Re:About Respecting Sovereignty by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's about them reluctantly following the rules of those countries, yet still letting the rest of the world route around those rules, and being completely transparent when censorship does occur (with their partnership with Chilling Effects.) Twitter is kind of being a warrior for free speech in its way here.

    2. Re:About Respecting Sovereignty by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! Twitter is making lemonade from lemons here.

    3. Re:About Respecting Sovereignty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about a company respecting other countries laws and their sovereignty.

      When did Twitter start shoving tweets down peoples throats? I thought I had to, like, actually go out of my way to use Twitter. So why, exactly, should Twitter give any sort of fuck about keeping a citizen from $Country_X from accessing its services?

      A lot of other countries do not hold the same western values of free speech as the rest of us.

      Oh, because the government of that country doesn't like it? You would do Nazi Germany proud...

    4. Re:About Respecting Sovereignty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we respect countries that blatantly restrict basic freedom?

  4. tongue in cheek by vencs · · Score: 1

    Head of Google India just tried to convince the adamant govt that it is impossible to censor content in India as the content/Internet has no borders.
    Good luck to Google and others for convincing the Kapil Sibal this time.

    1. Re:tongue in cheek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be a dick vencs, (short for "Venkat"? lame)

      Google's statement was about not doing it in real-time and against filtering before publishing - think about it. Twitter has also NOT said it will be filtering in real-time. There will obviously be some time period between when a tweet is published, deemed "offensive", and then censored in a particular country.

      Twitter has NOT agreed to do something that Google previously didn't agree to.

  5. Shocking!! money? by Moray_Reef · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
    1. Re:Shocking!! money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's doubtfully that this has anything to do with dictatorship except to obfuscate the need for the western so called free societies to hide their agenda and what this new function will be used against.

      Do not believe for a second that the protest storms such as OWS and London Student Protests (LSP) past by without plenty of government workers thinking what went wrong and they managed to get out of control and outsmart their government control. Of course they got to learn how not deal with this in the arab spring protests and what kind of techniques were useless.

      It is quite clear that twitter foremost and facebook secondary was the most important tools in coordinating these protests and movements, to allow them being flexible and dynamic and quickly adopt to government enforcement of so called 'order'. So comes the stab at what they perceive is the most important cog in that machinery. Of course western and other so called 'free societies' cannot block twitter and facebook without being showing off as dictatorships and inflame the protestors even more starting a revolution. So they will simply block certain news flows, specifically those central to coordination of protests and movements. And we return to the past where it was easy to beat down and control these 'radical' and 'dangerous' elements in society and make sure these grass movements never become anything big. While the rest of the society continues on undisturbed unknowing about what just happened.

  6. Why would twitter by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why would twitter even, work to create such a functionality? Is this in reaction to SOPA, were they afraid they'd end up getting shut down in the USA if it passed and they don't want to be caught with their pants down?

    Even so if this was the case why advertise it? How long before some draconian government demands that twitter use this to censor it's site 'for' its citizens.

    1. Re:Why would twitter by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      SOPA is about piracy. I don't know of any data compression method that will let you put a feature length movie into 140 characters.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Why would twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy, here, take a look at this compression format. You just need a special decompressor software and Internet access to unpack it.

      And yes, linking is crime as well in SOPA.

    3. Re:Why would twitter by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Have you been watching the news? Governments already have demanded Twitter block tweets in their countries. Egypt blocked Twitter during the revolts. This is just to keep themselves out of trouble when that sort of thing happens.

      As bad as SOPA is, I very much doubt it has anything to do with this.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Why would twitter by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      pretty sure linking to pirated content on your site can get you 'blocked' under SOPA.

    5. Re:Why would twitter by BradleyUffner · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know of any data compression method that will let you put a feature length movie into 140 characters.

      Here ya go... The Perfect Storm compressed to less than 140 characters: "They all die"

    6. Re:Why would twitter by BradleyUffner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ohh crap, I just realized that anyone who reads that is pirating the movie. Sorry guys.

    7. Re:Why would twitter by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know you're trying to joke but it honestly wouldn't surprise me that the entertainment industry would want to go after people who posted spoilers.

    8. Re:Why would twitter by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      SOPA is about piracy. I don't know of any data compression method that will let you put a feature length movie into 140 characters.

      Actually, you could do it with uuencode, but the length of time and the total number of tweets...you might as well get a minimum-wage job and work to BUY the movie - it would take less time/effort.

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    9. Re:Why would twitter by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are naive. Pirates are just the strawmen, the real goal of SOPA is to eliminate all user-generated content that threatens the monopoly of the Big Media.

    10. Re:Why would twitter by icebraining · · Score: 1

      There are such things are auto-posters.

    11. Re:Why would twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If non-compliance resulted in a complete ban on Twitter in that country, then a transparent censorship system is (arguably) less evil: it still allows the tweets to flow, and I think Twitter know deep-down that this censorship won't work the way the bad actors in bad countries hope it will.

    12. Re:Why would twitter by delinear · · Score: 1

      Maybe not spoilers but I'm surprised they haven't used it against bad reviews. After all, it's basically exactly the same argument as piracy. We have no way of proving people who downloaded the movie otherwise would have paid to see it, just as we have no way of proving people who read a bad review of a movie otherwise would have paid to see it. If the former is a valid reason to instigate laws to prevent piracy how far a step is it for the latter to be used to justify laws against bad reviews?

    13. Re:Why would twitter by Pope · · Score: 1

      And where is all this original user-generated content?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    14. Re:Why would twitter by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could do it with uuencode,

      Man, you just brought back memories of sitting in my dorm room, cruising alt.binaries and stitching my porn together by hand.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    15. Re:Why would twitter by tracyd · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. How many times have we seen examples of laws that are used in ways not intended. They create many laws that when combined together they suddenly can be used in a more sinister way than expected. Do not ever forget that those in power are those who interpret the laws to their own needs.

    16. Re:Why would twitter by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I guess you have missed the whole web2.0 that is based on it.

  7. Proxy. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    People living in repressive governments have been using proxies for years. This is irrelevant.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Proxy. by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is very relevant. Besides the fact that not everyone knows about proxies(and they are still not trivial to use on mobile devices, which is what many protesters use), you also have the fact that this is very much a "silent" form of censorship. Unlike less "refined" methods of censorship(for instance the "great firewall of China" where whole sites are blocked), you may not even realize that something had been censored. I doubt there are a significant number of people so paranoid that they constantly connect via a proxy just to check their twitter, esp. since proxies can often introduce a non-trivial amount of latency.

    2. Re:Proxy. by JWW · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed.

      No matter what anyone says. Today Twitter looks far more evil than Google.

    3. Re:Proxy. by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it is very relevant. Besides the fact that not everyone knows about proxies(and they are still not trivial to use on mobile devices, which is what many protesters use), you also have the fact that this is very much a "silent" form of censorship.

      Someone has a major case of "I didn't read TFA." Relevant quote:

      If Twitter does remove a tweet, users in the country in which it was removed will see a grayed-out tweet in their timeline that says a message from an identified user has been withheld.

      This is the exact opposite of "silent" censorship as you seem to mean it. The users know something was blocked, and it sounds like they know who sent it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Proxy. by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      And you really think they won't go the next step and remove that as well? Furthermore, do they explain what "withheld" means? I doubt anyone not familiar with Twitter will realize what that means(not to mention doing so is probably worse than just deleting it, as it essentially marks the poster as a 'troublemaker')

    5. Re:Proxy. by causality · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      No matter what anyone says. Today Twitter looks far more evil than Google.

      Not for those who don't use it.

      If I decided that Twitter, what Twitter does, or the content users of Twitter publish were important and indispensible to my life and my well-being, then yes, I could possibly be tempted to view things like this as an immense evil inflicted on my being. I could also snap out of that kind of thinking and realize Twitter has no power over me except what I elected it to have, and that in such a case I should have chosen more carefully.

      Twitter is nothing like the governments themselves in that sense. I am under no obligation to have any interaction with Twitter. I can't simply ignore my government in the same manner because they have people for that.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Proxy. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If I lived in a country with a history of that sort of censorship then I'd proxy my twitter.

      I can't speak to what other people would do... but it won't effect me.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Proxy. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I think there are really maybe four of us who understand that this is a measure against censorship, as much as Twitter can make one. The outrage-machine is in full swing and completely misinterprets what is actually going on.

    8. Re:Proxy. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      No, quite the opposite. Twitter as actually being as brave as they can reasonably get away with. There's a pandemic of misunderstanding here.

    9. Re:Proxy. by delinear · · Score: 1

      This is /. so nobody reads TFA but the quote GP highlights should be in the summary - it's almost the most important part of the story, telling people about censorship of tweets is a whole different ball game than just "blocking" tweets. The fact that it's been left out of the summary is probably a calculated move to provoke just the kind of reaction you're seeing from a community of people who are largely against censorship. If some guy pokes a big stick in a beehive causing the bees to come out and ruin your picnic, do you get mad with the bees, who are merely reacting to a perceived threat, or the guy with the stick?

    10. Re:Proxy. by JWW · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'm still deciding if I want to delete my twitter account or not.

    11. Re:Proxy. by VoidEngineer · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Twitter is taking a strong stance against censorship today and providing a checks-and-balances approach to censorship. They are containing censorship, rather than allowing global blackouts. They're actively tracking censorship and then routing around it. There is wide spread misunderstanding here.

    12. Re:Proxy. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      And you really think they won't go the next step and remove that as well?

      Forgive me for only being outraged at their actual actions and not their potential actions.

      I doubt anyone not familiar with Twitter will realize what that means

      Probably a fair point - perhaps they should link directly to Chilling Effects from that grayed-out tweet. It's hard to say, since they haven't actually used this yet.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Proxy. by causality · · Score: 1

      Yep. I'm still deciding if I want to delete my twitter account or not.

      The "tell" is when a company springs up overnight and is suddenly what EVERYONE MUST HAVE and instantly becomes some kind of HUGE FUCKING TREND. Those tend to be a waste of my time. What everyone "must" have tends to change rather suddenly. "Everyone else is doing it!" wasn't a good enough reason for me back in elementary school and it's not a good enough reason for me now. This includes things like Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

      Besides which, neither Facebook nor Twitter are doing anything novel or technically interesting. They did not invent the ability to submit an HTTP form and have the result appear on an HTML page.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    14. Re:Proxy. by tracyd · · Score: 1

      That is not a problem. Both in Egypt and Lybia they shutdown the internet and telecommunications completely and still they managed to communicate and organize their protests while informing the world about what was happening. More importantly what west learned from this was that the there were suddenly only two voices, the message was concentrated, no more random rants from weed smokers, no more random normal life shown, but only two extremes, one pro-government/government and the other anti-government. Nothing in between. This functionality avoids this problem, while the opposition loses the ability to use twitter to coordinate and organize their protests/movements the others not yet involved can continue to portray ordinary random life and happenings, while government pr teams can continue to work unobstructed. This is a sinister function, and lessons are well learned by the worlds governments and they have found out a way to effectively disarm twitter while continue to look 'free'.

  8. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm really starting to get sick and tired of all this damn 1940s style censorship.

  9. Streisand Effect, anyone? by srjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't necessarily applaud them for this - operating under the laws of a specific country may well be a case of having their hands tied.

    However this is the right way to go about applying government censorship, if there is such a thing. Let those in the censoring country see a "your government has banned this tweet" message, and letting everyone else see "The X government has banned this Tweet, but here it is because you're not in X" will shed light on what was being censored, will shed light on the censorship itself, and both the attention and the trivial nature of defeating censorship will let those in the relevant country see it anyway.

    That is something that arguably can be applauded.

    1. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by JWW · · Score: 1

      I would be much more impressed if twitter said "we're leaving" to India instead of saying "ok, we'll censor our users tweets."

      Very cowardly move on twitter's part.

    2. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So your solution would be, instead of Indians having a partially-censored network, you want Twitter to voluntarily fully censor the network for them. Whose side are you on again?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by http · · Score: 2

      Your government has censored this post.

      Still applauding?

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    4. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False dilemma. Twitter should provide a service to its user. If governments want it censored, let THEM do it, not twitter. Twitter isn't required to operate inside India to provide their service to the Indian people. I'm pretty sure twitter doesn't operate in the country I'm in, yet I can use their service.

    5. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by delinear · · Score: 1

      A better solution (and I don't know, maybe this is what they're going to do) would be to not silently kill the tweets but to indicate that there is a censored tweet. They'd be complying with the letter of the law but still letting people know this was going on (and people would find other ways to track down and publicise the censored content).

    6. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the past, there would be simply silence. A government order would be delivered to a Twitter (or a Facebook or a forum) and the material would disappear, everywhere. Often the material was child pornography - most links removed by Twitter last year were child porn links.

      Now, there is a trace left for every act of censorship. When a government demands something be removed (and this will only matter for those countries in which Twitter is doing business and has offices - e.g., not Iran, but France, Germany, etc) the rest of us will find out, as will the twitterer. This is the minimum amount of accommodation that Twitter can make to a censoring government while still doing business in that country at all, and is less accommodation than they used to do, or anyone else (including Slashdot) does.

      So, yes, I am applauding Twitter for letting me know that they were ordered by the government to censor me, for reporting the act of censorship to Chilling Effects, and for routing around that censorship where that government has no authority.

    7. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Ok, so Twitter refuses the opportunity to self-censor, and the Indian government gets its ISPs to block Twitter due to lack of censorship. Oh look, we're back where we started. No, Twitter doesn't operate on infrastructure in every country, but it needs the co-operation of that infrastructure. And governments all around the world have started being a bit heavy-handed when it comes to the whole "neutral infrastructure" issue.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's pretty much what they are planning to do:

      Twitter has defended its role in helping protesters in the Middle East and other regions organize themselves and spread unauthorized messages within and beyond their countries. But it now has the ability to comply with local standards by blocking tweets from users just in the country in which they are banned. Those messages would be visible to Twitter users elsewhere in the world.

      If Twitter does remove a tweet, users in the country in which it was removed will see a grayed-out tweet in their timeline that says a message from an identified user has been withheld.

      Through an expanded partnership with Chilling Effects, a project that tracks constraints on online content, the company also will publish requests to withhold content.

      Censorship by the government is never a good idea, but this is one of the better ways of responding to it.

    9. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by UHBo2 · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm missing the part that said India was the offending country?

    10. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! This is a strong move *against* global censorship on Twitter's part; while at the same time respecting local laws and tracking censorship activities. They've made lemonade from lemons.

    11. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by thereitis · · Score: 1

      The the US government's huge influence on world governments, I wouldn't be surprised if a block request listed the specific countries as "all of them". Twitter is in no position to defy them. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

    12. Re:Streisand Effect, anyone? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Also, it might sometimes beat the alternative, which is taking it out on the people... but is stopping a revolutionary tweet in a country riffled w fear and oppression really the right thing to do? I agree it's not twitters responsibility and that they are a business and want the web traffic, but then it speaks for twitter and that is that they are "just" a business and should be treated as such > they will do what and only what nets them profit.

  10. When did they break the internet? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How am I supposed to build a webpage, when I have no clue what hyperlinked content will actually be available to the viewer? This is ridiculous.

    1. Re:When did they break the internet? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How am I supposed to build a webpage, when I have no clue what hyperlinked content will actually be available to the viewer? This is ridiculous.

      Really, you're just discovering broken links in 2012?

      So you say you don't like your government censoring ... have you tried turning it off and back on again yet?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:When did they break the internet? by derfy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've done that. YES, I've tried unplugging and plugging it back in...it's kinda hard to see though because the lights are out.

    3. Re:When did they break the internet? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      I've tried rebooting my government but I'm afraid it won't have valid flash to re-run from and none of us can afford a blinking twelve style government.

      can we?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:When did they break the internet? by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think that a blinking 12 government beats one that tells you it is 13 o'clock with a perfectly straight face.

    5. Re:When did they break the internet? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid we'll just have to wipe the disk and install another government. Just switching the UI every 4 years isn't helping.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. #ABANDONTWITTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    #ABANDONTWITTER - can I be the first to say it? YES! The internet was a great tool to work around a lot of problems... what ever happened?

    1. Re:#ABANDONTWITTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make something better silly. Tricks are for programmin' kids ;-)

    2. Re:#ABANDONTWITTER by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Make something better silly. Tricks are for programmin' kids ;-)

      No, something better should be serious. Too bad most of the wireless spectrum is heavily regulated to prevent us "programmin' kids" from creating such a "better" something.

  12. Re:twitter sucks by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

    if you think fox news is bad, try cnn. Last time I watched, I thought twitter had bought their own network to do nothing but read tweets.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  13. natural right by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of other countries do not hold the same western values of free speech as the rest of us. Why can't some people respect that?

    Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "western values" (whatever the hell those are). The fact is that all human beings have the ability to engage in free speech; Governments or individuals may punish you for exercising that ability but the ability is still there. It's the same with the 2nd Amendment really -- you can regulate weapons all you want but people can still obtain and use them. Doubt this? Ask the guy who just got shanked in prison if the person who stabbed him didn't keep and bear arms.

    BTW, you need not limit yourself to the US Constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:natural right by causality · · Score: 2

      Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "western values" (whatever the hell those are). The fact is that all human beings have the ability to engage in free speech

      I like what you say and in fact, I know the truth of it myself. But what you're doing there isn't going to work on that sort of person. What you're doing is speaking to them like they are reasonable adults. Maybe you believe they will rise to the occasion given the opportunity. What they believe is not reasonable. That's why it can't work, no matter how true and reasonable it is. The only way to change anything is to recognize you are dealing with a phony system and invalidate it.

      The fact is, the recognition and respect of natural rights like free speech plays out in a certain predictable way. It ends up being better for everyone and the only things it "costs you" are things you're better off without, such as unnecessary coercion. This is a fact that is true because you are human and have a pulse. The problem is, the people who sympathize with tyranny and hide its vices behind a veil of relativism think that's only my opinion.

      They couldn't imagine this set of initial conditions always producing the same result each time it's faithfully tried. They think that's my "Western values of individualism" even though real individuality is hard to find in most "Western" nations these days. The fact that all people are better off when treated with a certain respect that honors their rights and their dignity is more than an opinion.

      The one thing I never understood is this lack of awareness of interconnectedness. That's why I never could fully grasp how a man could want to create and live in a total totalitarian state with all the misery it creates so long as he is in charge of it. Living in such a state is bad enough, let alone the personal responsibility for helping to create it. You'd truly have to believe that each man is a perfectly isolated island for any such desire to make a shred of sense.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:natural right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      Uh, how does that even make sense? I want to exercise my right to get on TV before the Republican debate. I will moon everyone. According to that declaration, I ought to be able to send that message out through the media I want, which is TV. Is this what they were thinking? Or were they just trying to get a jab in at USSR?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:natural right by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say the 'inalienable human rights' are de facto Western products because they rely on dependencies such as individualism and universialism stemming from German Idealism (and earlier) as well as principles of Western civilization like Habeas corpus.

      In fact, I would argue that only such a historical contingency (hard birth) makes these values worth fighting for, so as to decouple them from historical struggle and aim towards global law.

      You can have parallell rights in other world views. Chinese culture has a stronger sense of community that I speculate is due to a we-before-I thinking, bereft of the universal individualism of the west. These rights could even be similar in effect, bur would mean entirely different things.

    4. Re:natural right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to exercise and defend.

    5. Re:natural right by delinear · · Score: 1

      It's the same with the 2nd Amendment really -- you can regulate weapons all you want but people can still obtain and use them. Doubt this? Ask the guy who just got shanked in prison if the person who stabbed him didn't keep and bear arms.

      That's the worst argument I've ever heard. We also regulate murder, go ask the family of someone who just got murdered how effective the law against murder is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to lay down a framework of law to prevent it happening.

    6. Re:natural right by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You have the right, but that doesn't mean that anyone is obligated to provide you with the means to exercise the right (though arguably simply pulling your trousers down in public is not expression, it's merely childish lewdness and so not deserving of such lofty protection - but that's a different matter). They're just not entitled to prevent you (where "They" in this case means "the government" or similar entity). If you can't convince an existing broadcaster to give you your 15 minutes of fame, you are free to find a wealthy-enough sponsor (or self-fund) to buy the necessary equipment and permits to run your own station, or to buy an advertising slot, etc.

    7. Re:natural right by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to lay down a framework of law to prevent it happening.

      Prevent is probably the wrong word... we punish AFTER it happens - in general, laws meant to "prevent" things have far more serious effects than was intended. Collateral damage, as it were.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:natural right by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's a dubious comparison but you did make one valid point: The law can't prevent murder, all it can do is punish it after the fact. The 2nd Amendment exists in part so that you have the ability to defend yourself against that would-be murderer. Even the UDHR recognizes this:

      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

      For better or worse weaponry is the only thing that will enable human beings to have such security. A 120 pound female stands virtually no chance against a 200 pound male without some sort of weapon. Ditto for someone with a physical handicap. Ditto for the elderly. Ditto for a person faced with multiple aggressors. Hell, the UDHR places this right ahead of free speech. The above is Article III, free speech is Article XIX.

      In any case the original point stands. You can punish people for exercising free speech after the fact but you can't stop them beforehand. Ditto for the keeping and bearing of arms. We can't successfully disarm people in prison -- the most controlled environment on Earth -- it's futile to assume that we can disarm them in a free society. It also runs afoul of the inalienable right to defend oneself against aggression. Self defense is recognized and protected in virtually every country on the planet. In no jurisdiction that I'm aware of are you expected to meekly submit to someone who seeks to inflict bodily harm upon you. The question then becomes does the law allow you to legally possess the tools required to effectively exercise the right of self defense. In the United States and many other countries it does.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:natural right by tepples · · Score: 1

      Once all available permits have been sold and all owners of advertising slots have declined you, what's the next step toward exercising free speech?

    10. Re:natural right by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uh, by that standard, the USSR had the freest speech in the world. All you needed was a permit, after all....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:natural right by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "western values" (whatever the hell those are). The fact is that all human beings have the ability to engage in free speech; Governments or individuals may punish you for exercising that ability but the ability is still there. It's the same with the 2nd Amendment really -- you can regulate weapons all you want but people can still obtain and use them. Doubt this? Ask the guy who just got shanked in prison if the person who stabbed him didn't keep and bear arms.

      I should probably read up a bit on Natural Rights, but.....

      Where do you draw the line? All human beings have the ability to hit a child. Does that mean that hitting children is a Natural Right? Realistically, I agree that Speech is a Natural Right, but philosophically I have an issue with how you present the case. I don't necessarily agree that because a prisoner can get access to a weapon that all Men have a Natural Right to bear arms. Likewise for "drugs". While I would argue that most, if not all drugs should be legal, I'm not sure that we have a Natural Right to drug possession or use. Perhaps I'm being a bit too strict though, as my thoughts are that there are times when it is necessary to restrict the right of drug/weapon possession or use. But likewise, there are times when it is appropriate to restrict speech rights, and I would agree that it is a Natural Right, so it appears that Natural Rights can and should (imo) be abridged in some cases. Interesting stuff....

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    12. Re:natural right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. [Bunch of other bullshit...]

      Many people (including Shakrai apparently) do not know what rights are, or what the word means. Such people just arbitrarily decide that "all people" are born with "rights". So let me clarify for you: a right (in this context, not for example, the opposite of left, or of incorrect...) is a guarantee by a government to a person or people, etc., to refuse to prosecute them, etc., for certain actions. For example, the right to remain silent after being detained or arrested on suspicion, in the US, of having committed a crime, is granted because the people who form the government decided that its citizens, etc., should have that right.

      It isn't granted by some imaginary creation fairy, it isn't given because popular public opinion dictates it. Our laws are based on written rules with names like The Constitution (in the US), the Code of Federal Regulations, Acts of Congress, etc., etc., etc. In other countries, similar things exist, though not necessarily in all. In any case, a bunch of yokels getting together and chanting that someone or some group has some right or another DOES NOT, and let me repeat that... D O E S N O T make it so.

      Rights are not granted by your phony-baloney god, or angels, or buddha, or allah, or sheba, or bozehwah, or whatever. They can't grant them because in the first place, they're not real, they don't exist. Second, the agency granting the rights is generally the one against whose actions those rights protect. An agency without the power to enforce the laws cannot grant or protect rights. For example, any government that decides people have the right to levitate, can do so all it wants, that doesn't actually confer the ability to levitate. As another example, a city that grants its residents the right to smoke marijuana in public, can grant it all they want, but when the state or federal authorities see someone doing it, that right the city granted will NOT prevent the individual being prosecuted because (at least here in the US) given the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, and provisions in state constitutions that doubtless exist and have similar effects at the state level, addressing the acts of local governments, and the resolution of the whole "nullification" controversy... (anyone remember that?), state and local laws cannot grant you the right to violate a law that exists at a higher echelon of government than the granting echelon.

      Now that I have educated everyone on the basics of what rights are, to the subject at hand. People in other countries that have NOT enshrined in their laws that individuals have freedom to speak, and say whatever they like without fear of retribution or reprisal by their national (or lower echelon) governments, DO NOT, IN POINT OF FACT, HAVE THAT RIGHT, no matter how much anyone else somewhere else (or there) thinks they should. This goes for any and all other rights as well. For example. the fifth amendment to the US Constitution grants people subject to the authority of the US government, or any lower echelon of government, subordinate to the US government, that persons accused of committing crimes cannot be compelled to give testimony that would tend to incriminate themselves. US citizens have this right. Others present in the US may also have this right, I'm not 100% sure how rights are applied to foreigners, although I would like to think the same rights are extended to all, since it's not for the benefit of the individual concerned, but for the good of all that our rights are granted to avoid the US or a subordinate government from becoming a tyranny.

      HOWEVER, people in another country, where the laws do not mention that, are NOT granted those rights. If, for example, in Mexico, a neighboring country, there is no such right anywhere, perhaps even, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the governments agents being permitted to compel accused alleged criminals

  14. What happened to corporate values? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to corporate values?
    In return for more revenue, companies like Twitter seem to throw all their corporate values in the garbage bin.

    The tragic thing is that Twitter does fail to mention on who's behalf they block the content.....

  15. Re:twitter sucks by schnikies79 · · Score: 0

    No kidding. I was watching CNN a few days ago, just catching up before I went to work and they were mentioning rain in the northwest. They started reading tweets about the weather and the one I remember was "rain rain, go away".

    How insightful.

    --
    Gone!
  16. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. Can we please... by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    just ban Twitter completely and call it a day? I mean honestly, I can't think of a better Internet entity where "and nothing of value was lost" applies.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:Can we please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So those revolutions that were started on Twitter and oppressive governments that were overthrown using it....nothing of value is lost if that capability is lost? Do you really know what you're talking about or you just another BS anti-social-network clown?

  18. In the words of lewis black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzNkolUVBlQ

  19. Yup, that tears it. by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

    Now I know I will never get a Twitter account.

    1. Re:Yup, that tears it. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I'll create one for you, then cancel it so that you can say you quit.

    2. Re:Yup, that tears it. by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      If I could get a million people to do this for me then I could be the biggest quitter ever!

    3. Re:Yup, that tears it. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1
      OK. There. I registered "AccessGrant" as the Twitter handle & Grant Robertson as the name -- Then immediately Deactivated the account.

      Your account will be permanently deleted in 30 days. If you change your mind you can reactivate by logging in before your account is deleted permanently.

      If you actually would like to reconsider, please post your public PGP key and I'll post back the PGP encrypted password. Alternatively you can send me a message at the email address listed above. Note however I don't get spam -- That is: Any message that is not cryptographically verifiable by PGP key will be ignored.

  20. Re:twitter sucks by game+kid · · Score: 1

    On FiOS TV where I live, you'll often see a "Check out CNN on Twitter" prompt while watching the channel. Push the relevant magic button and you're staring at their channel.

    I won't be surprised if we hear about another TimeWarner-Internet Giant merger soon. CNN really does seem to at least mention or show staff @UserNames whenever there's screen space. It starts to annoy me when I see @brookebcnn float in that little box every few seconds like it was some sort of bikini girl on a raft in a pool.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  21. Where did it go? by lazycam · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Liberty? Freedom? Justice?

    Where are you?

    Guess they were sacrificed in the name of global business interests. When I was a child my father taught me that America was a great country because censorship (in most forms) was completely absent from the the public mind. Hell, I remember reading about the days when leaflets were dropped by American bombers. We shoved our norm of "Freedom of Speech" in everyone faces. We laughed in the face of Communism and censorship. Those were the days...

    In this country, any man could stand on a street corner and say what is on his mind. The soapbox on the street is no different from 140 character blurbs shouted out online, but for whatever reason 'people' (i.e. companies and governments) seem to think otherwise. You give an inch, and they'll take a foot. You give a foot, and apparently you end up with companies giving up to foreign regimes like prom girls. Moreover, you have our own legislatures supporting legislation like SOPA and PIPA. I'm guessing the next laws that are passed will form some brand of domestic secret police that's out to stop online piracy, and oh yeah, track down individuals who make defaming comments that "hurt the feelings" of some regime or foreign leader with less than a primary school education. We'll get our act together once our extradition treaties start being used to ship expats away to their country of origin for their ideas and comments said here.

    At this rate the very idea of freedom of speech will be gone within our generation.

    --
    my mom posts on slashdot.
    1. Re:Where did it go? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This move by Twitter has been completely misunderstood. It is difficult to find a platform more committed to free speech than Twitter.

      What has changed is that what used to be a global censorship is now limited to the governments that force the material offline.

      In the past, if a country in which Twitter was doing business told them to pull a tweet, they'd have to pull it around the world. Now, it will a. only be pulled in the country that ordered the Tweet censored, b. the person who wrote it will find out about it, and c. the chilling effects clearing house will be notified.

      Every country will censor something. The US will censor state secrets, libel and slander, and threats. In France, denying either the Armenian or Jewish holocausts will be censored. In some countries, blasphemy is censored. In Germany, any discussion of the Nazis is censored. Before this policy by Twitter, all those things would result in a global ban.

      I really don't understand the outrage (I do understand the outrage at the governments which censor, but not at Twitter.) Is reading comprehension so universally bad?

    2. Re:Where did it go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a child my father taught me that America was a great country because censorship (in most forms) was completely absent from the the public mind.

      Absent from public's mind =/= absent.

      Your father bought the propaganda: he inadvertently lied to you. Ask victims of Senator McCarthy (as just one example) about their "freedom of speech" in America.

      --
      LazyCam's mother.

    3. Re:Where did it go? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! This is a strong move by Twitter to contain censorship, track it, and route around it. We should be glad for the work they've done!

    4. Re:Where did it go? by hweimer · · Score: 1

      Liberty? Freedom? Justice?

      Where are you?

      https://joindiaspora.com/

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    5. Re:Where did it go? by Ltap · · Score: 1

      If you were a child in, perhaps, the 1970s, that would be understandable. However, the sheer amount of coercion and silent censorship done in the 50s and 60s, by both companies, the US government, or both working together is terrible to consider. Things like erotic art and novels being destroyed by customs agents on importation (government), the Hays Code (which banned depictions of "miscegenation" or inter-racial relationships, as well as negative depictions of priests, industry), the almost total lack of government transparency before the FOIA (government), and the Hollywood Blacklist of any strong leftist screenwriters (industry).

      Most of this was chipped away at or pushed aside in the 1960s, but if someone grew up before or during that time, they didn't live in a utopia of free speech by any means. Many of these things still persist -- the modern MPAA was created to update the Hays Code. It threw away some measures, but kept the strong attitude toward nudity that can only be described as a desperate, psychologically-sick fear of sexuality, especially female sexuality. The result has been the actual inability of many filmmakers to portray normal, equal relationships and to instead have a constant stream of stripper and prostitute characters for their nudity (since, while female nudity will merit an R, open female sexuality might bump the film up to an un-marketable NC-17). Such is censorship.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
  22. Chilling effects by ieatcookies · · Score: 1

    Partnership with chilling effects...this is somewhat ironic.

  23. Nope by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.
    -- 2005 World Summit, paragraph 121

  24. Why? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better if the countries in question had to block Twitter altogether to get rid of dissent? - That would cause more frustration and more anger towards the authorities, thus hopefully resulting in a revolution. Greyed out tweets won't have the same effect, and the goal here must be freedom from any form of censorship, right?

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  25. Also I think you're a troll by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    What you're arguing for is 'cultural relativism'.
    Your post just seems too well crafted, and feels trollish to me, but in case this is actually that you think, 'cultural relativism' lost.

    All international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable.

    Countries who violate peoples freedom though censorship are universally in the wrong.

    1. Re:Also I think you're a troll by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      "Cultural relativism" is simply a fact, in that cultures produce morality. You can deny that all you like, but it's obvious from history and anthropology.

      Of course, the idea that you have to tolerate another culture's morality is also grounded only in one's own culture, and is clearly not shared by many cultures.

      Yes, at the bottom is nihilism of a sort. How you deal with that is your problem, ultimately. Hold onto your values as loosely or as tightly as you like, but don't look for the universe itself to confirm them: it doesn't care about what you think is "universally" applicable.

      And I suspect, too, that you will find some mode of speech to exempt from absolute commitment to non-censorship. Say, making threats. Revealing personal information (e.g., your SSN,)

    2. Re:Also I think you're a troll by VoidEngineer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! Cultural relativism is a fact. International groups can claim that human rights like free speech are universally applicable, but an Ebola outbreak, zombie apocalypse, nuclear holocaust, or a planet smashing comet is all that it will take to send us back to feudalism and might-makes-right morality. We may advocate for treating free speech as a universal right; but as long as other nations have the might to protect their borders and claim their own sovereignty, they can make their own laws. Including ones that involving censorship. The claiming that a free speech is universal is, itself, a morally and culturally relative act.

    3. Re:Also I think you're a troll by bbecker23 · · Score: 0

      You're confusing morality with how people will actually behave. Morality describes how people *should* behave and is certainly universal. Your nuclear Holocaust or zombie apocalypse may change people's willingness to perform bad acts but it does nothing to change the moral status of those acts. Cultural relativism is nothing more than moral escapism; a convenient way to ignore atrocities that happen a sufficient distance from "home".

      --
      cat /dev/random > sig.txt
  26. The AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I routinely post AC, even though I have a /. account. Want to know why? So that that any of the insider knowledge I have limits it's damage to /. if I decide to shoot my mouth off about a previous employer or some other entity. It's much easier to just post as AC than it is to create an account that can be purged or censored all at once.

    This is the lesson for Twitter. Censoring individual tweets, treating them like spam, are the same thing. But The US is the only country in the world where free speech is enshrined by the Constitution. In every other country, you do not have free speech, and saying the wrong thing as a citizen of that country can send you to jail, even though you said it on a foreign website.

    In some cases it's morally safer to remove free speech when it puts the practioner of the speech into severe danger. The Westboro loonys may say some horrible things, but they do so at their own peril. It's one thing Americans tend to forget, is that their free speech ends at the US Border.

  27. American newspapers censor this way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a developer for a major newspaper firm.

    Let me tell you... for *years*, we've been deleting people's posts but to them it still seems like they're posted. The system is adept enough to also show thier comments to anyone friended to them, and it also shows up via a direct URL link. But in the main page, no one sees crap.

    This is the way it is on the 30+ newspapers I help develop the core platform of. Right here in the United States.

    1. Re:American newspapers censor this way! by UHBo2 · · Score: 1

      And this is just one reason why traditional newspapers, and their online versions are dying.

    2. Re:American newspapers censor this way! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Really? And here I thought it was because internet news is more convenient, cheaper (usually free) and much easier to filter down to just the subjects one is interested in.

    3. Re:American newspapers censor this way! by Pope · · Score: 1

      So what? It's their site, they can do what they want with comments.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    4. Re:American newspapers censor this way! by tepples · · Score: 1

      But with Internet news, is it easy to filter down to just sources that have established a reputation for fact-checking among other sources that have also established a reputation for fact-checking?

    5. Re:American newspapers censor this way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? And here I thought it was because internet news is more convenient, cheaper (usually free) and much easier to filter down to just the subjects one is interested in.

      I sure do hate it when someone's utter failure to comprehend what they read fucks up a potentially great thread. Like you just did.

      He said newspapers AND THEIR ONLINE VERSIONS. Last I checked, an online newspaper is internet news too. No, Sparky, my dear special-ed graduate, he was talking about the echo-chamber and all the editorial boundaries that create a kind of monoculture. With traditional newspapers, you write a "letter to the editor" or online equivalent of a comment post, you are likely to be censored. You either stay within the box or you deviate too far from whatever thoughts the paper approves of and are silenced.

      On real Internet news not controlled by major newspaper companies, everything is totally uncensored. It's an entirely different culture. If you can articulate an unusual viewpoint with some skill, people will listen. If you suck at expressing yourself or you're just repeating some bullshit party line, people won't. There is a diversity of opinion and philosophy you just won't find in a standard newspaper where every idea must reinforce the mainstream viewpoint.

  28. In Other News by Secret+Agent+Man · · Score: 1

    I can prevent my own content from appearing in certain countries from my blog or other web sources.

    This isn't a Freedom of Speech issue, guys. Twitter is an online service. They can show or hide content however they feel. This isn't like the government stepping in and preventing access -- it's a non-government entity doing stuff with its own content. Is it annoying? Sure. Bad precedent? Maybe. However, the "the sky is falling" SlashDot crowd is jumping the gun a bit, even for them.

    1. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banning tweets doesn't meet the strict legal definition of "censorship", which is government control of speech before publication.
      But you're wrong that this isn't a Freedom of Speech issue. In fact, it's a First Amendment issue, as we're talking about government control of speech, albeit after publication. Twitter is actually doing the right thing here, in that they're minimizing the effect of government influence outside a government's actual jurisdiction.

      If Twitter were to ban tweets itself (which they probably do, based on Terms of Service transgressions), government doesn't enter into it. But it would still be a Freedom of Speech issue. There's an expectation that twitter doesn't editorialize, so it would be wrong if they were to filter tweets based on content. For example, if they were to filter tweets with negative opinions about McDonald's. There might not be a law against it, but at some point morality does filter in. E.g. you wouldn't expect the website of a PAC to allow negative messages about the candidate they support. But isn't that also stifling debate within the PAC (or at least putting blinkers on), which in the end is harmful to the PAC itself? Well, their money, their call, I suppose. But the more power an organization projects, and the more it's the case that they're funded by people (e.g. customers) who have no say in their policy, the more objective and moral we should expect them to behave.

  29. Spiders' net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are naive. Pirates are just the strawmen, the real goal of SOPA is to eliminate all user-generated content that threatens the monopoly of the Big Media.

    Hmm, even the schools and prisons fail at eliminating "user-generated content". Ultimately, Big Media may usurp the Internet and push us all out, but we will find another way. As long as we have any means of communication, we will exchange the products of our creative minds.

    What will probably happen is Big Media will push laws to allow them to appropriate user-generated content and sell it in exchange for 5-minutes fame for the authors, and sheepish masses will be content with it and even love it! Alternative channels will be deemed criminal "black market of ideas", demonized and suppressed. The latter is already happening as we speak, for the former they need to somehow legally differentiate between commercial, "real" IP producers and "amateurs" or "client authors", "petty authors" etc. , but I don't doubt they will think of something. For now we have reality programs and contracts, but with adequate law in place, they could save on legal expenses.

  30. aww..man AGAIN? by echonyne · · Score: 0

    I have been saying it.. like many of us..all we need is a strong hacker grid + we need (now that individual cos are filtering our data) we need to put up an independent twitter AND/OR facebook like network working in the hacker grid itself ! :) network being based on such as those of "tor" (onion routing) :D that way we will be able to share our data + the information like we are on twitter/facebook and people would also be able to access it safely and securely too from the WWW (this specifically could be optional) what say fellas?

  31. My burning question is- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How do I subscribe to a Twitter feed of the blocked tweets?

  32. The way we shut down.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... the military industrial complex is to get to know each other around the world, that there are no ghost in the closet or monsters under the bed, that the mass majority of people on this planet are to busy living their daily lives to have any motive to go to the other side of the planet and kill people they never met. But the military industrial complex has their war tactics to cut communications of the enemy. And that makes the people, the 99% the enemy to... Who?

  33. The scary-weird part... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...is that they announced this, publicly, as if it's something they are actually proud of.
    WTF?

  34. Time to start looking for a replacement. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    I don't know why social media sites (facebook, twitter) think they can do whatever they want without any backlash.
    Myspace thought the same thing, and look where they are now.
    Just because you're on top today, doesn't mean you will be tomorrow.
    And yes, I'm just pissed because you KNOW the US government is going to dip its fat fingers into this.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  35. Seven pitches, two durations, $150,000 fine. by tepples · · Score: 1

    There are seven pitches in the musical scale if you ignore octaves and accidentals. A note can be short or long compared to other notes. With 14 possibilities of (pitch, duration), you can fit two notes into one byte. This way, a tweet hold not only the nine notes sufficient for accidental infringement (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music) but also the entire recognizable melody of the first verse and chorus of a popular song.

  36. Re:twitter sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe its because they don't have any other news to report because the government is censoring it?

  37. 13 o'clock by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm beginning to think that a blinking 12 government beats one that tells you it is 13 o'clock with a perfectly straight face.

    What's so wrong with telling someone it's 1 PM? It'll be 13:00 in about six minutes in my time zone.

    1. Re:13 o'clock by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      A) Show me a culture that actually calls it "13 o'clock" instead of "thirteen-hundred hours" or just "thirteen-hundred."
      (Actually, I would be curious to know if any do.)

      B) Perhaps you aren't getting the Mickey Mouse Club reference. or...

      C) Perhaps I am way too old...

  38. But why? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    Twitter is a US company. Why does it care if someone tweets something objectionable in another country? This isn't Twitter's problem!

    What motive does Twitter have to help oppressive regimes oppress their people? Are they being bribed by foreign governments? I just don't see how this can benefit Twitter when those foreign governments have no say in how Twitter is run.

  39. Disney Channel was once premium by tepples · · Score: 1

    B) Disney Channel wasn't on basic cable when I was growing up. Until 1997, it was considered premium, as HBO is today.

    1. Re:Disney Channel was once premium by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      There was no basic cable when I was growing up. No cable TV at all. Mickey Mouse Club was in re-runs in the afternoons when I got home from school. Actually, I thought the show was boring and switched over to Batman & Robin or Lost in Space once I saw that hoard of brats singing that stupid song.

  40. Re:twitter sucks by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

    No need, CNN censors itself.

    --
    Gone!
  41. Perhaps ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    they'll grey out the tweet using the same technology used to redact sensitive information in PDFs.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.