How Will You React To Twitter's Regional Censorship Plan?

I won't by Pete+Venkman · 2012-01-29 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny

I won't react.

Re:I won't by jhoegl · 2012-01-29 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I will, by continuing to not have a twitter account or pay attention to tweets
Re:I won't by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-29 04:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

twitter and facebook remind me SO MUCH of the cb craze in the 70's.
you could spot the unintelligent ones easily. they 'liked' cb.
today, the fools 'like' fb and twit.
its always handy to have a 'fools identification' device of some kind or another, isn't it?
on topic: I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship. I really miss the old days where the USENET model was popular. you know, not one single company owning it, not one single place to spy on people, not one single place to filter what the people want to say and see and hear. then, web-based this and that came into playing and websites are owned by single entities, not 'the people'. that was the start of the end of net.freedom.
I hope fb and T die. they are not really freedom based, are they? we used to have mass communication tools that were truly freedom based. mabye we can revisit them again, in some other way?
if a single company or group is behind it, its bad. yes, including the beloved google, too.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:I won't by geogob · 2012-01-29 05:07 · Score: 1

Maybe I was too young in the 70's to see what was really going on, but looking back at the state of things as I started to get aware of such things - and very young I already was a "techno-freak" so to say - I believe the comparison is difficult.
On one side, you are correct, it seems like the same kind of craze. On the other hand, the so called social media craze (I'm including in that the full spectrum, from twitter, to myspace) seems quite more widespread than the cb on the 70's. I believe it is less than 10% of the people I know that do not use social media sites in any way or form. Less than 25% that are not on facebook (regardless how active they are - so are very little, other much). Twitter acceptation in my circle seems quite less widespread.
Anyway, with numbers like this, it forces me to take a step back a the cb comparison, however correct it might seem at first hand.
Re:I won't by vlm · 2012-01-29 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

On the other hand, the so called social media craze (I'm including in that the full spectrum, from twitter, to myspace) seems quite more widespread than the cb on the 70's.
The numbers are much smaller than CB. Here's an interesting article.
http://billcrosby.com/socialmedia/how-many-twitter-users-are-there-really-graph/
Depending on how you interpret the data, around 1 in 50 americans actually use twitter. At one point in the 70s, darn near 1 in 10 cars had a CB radio installed.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Most people have nothing to say, and are not interested in passively listening to others. Also its exceedingly circular, its not a surprise that most of the people you personally hang out with are into social media if you define the persons you hang out with as people who are into social media... This is the "everyone is a trekkie" effect where all the trekkies hang out together believing the entire world is trekkies because everyone they know is a trekkie.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:20 · Score: 1

I don't fully understand how this got modded as insightful. Have you ever used Twitter at all? Twitter is actually very useful if you want to see what many in the videogames industry are up to. That's what I use it for. Nobody forces you to tweet your entire life, either. The fact that you actually put Facebook and Twitter in the same basket speaks volumes of your ignorance.
--
Tired of the Google assholes? Switch to DuckDuckGo today!
Re:I won't by Hentes · 2012-01-29 05:24 · Score: 1

And by 'fools' I guess you mean 'people with social lives'. Also, if you look at the state of p2p communication tools you will see why they are done by big companies: they have the evil money to actually develop them.
Re:I won't by RJFerret · 2012-01-29 05:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Twitter lost me when they ruined their search capability.
Google+ easily replaced it, more convenient than Twitter, Email, video conferencing beats telephone, etc.
But the CB analogy doesn't hold water, as Google+ replaced email/phone for many people I interact with, they are non-technical, so find it more convenient. Meanwhile my technical friends appreciate it too, given the control and ease they have with the tool.
The only frustrating part, telephones used to be ubiquitous. Nowadays, some people never check voicemail, some people never answer the phone but rely on voicemails; some people expect texts, some never text; some email, some consider email old-school/too formal; some use Twitter, some use Google+ (thankfully nobody in my varied social circles used Facebook)--to contact anyone requires not just knowing their number/address/handle/whatever, but also knowing what their preferred communication medium is!
Re:I won't by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:30 · Score: 1

I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship

Except that most people will continue to use these systems, and when it comes time to talk about taboo/censored topics they will just used commonly understood code words. People are not going to give up on Twitter because of censorship, just like they did not give up on Facebook because of censorship, or the App Store, or any number of other systems that engage in censorship. The number of people who really care and really want to end censorship is extremely small; most people just want to live their lives and if possible skirt around censorship.

Not only that, but there is an incentive for regressive governments to allow people to skirt censorship. If people only barely evade the censors, then the censors can easily stop the conversation should they need to -- say, if there are mass protests against the government. People will always find a way to skirt the censors, and if your censors are at the limits of what they are capable of, then you lose. Governments want people to be aware that they are being watched, to know that the government has the power to censor them, and to be able to censor people as necessary.

There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part governments know that if the tighter they close their fists, the more citizens will slip through their fingers.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:31 · Score: 0

I get faster customers service via twitter than I do by email, phone, letter, in person, or fax. Facebook is a close second. So maybe I am unintelligent, but I have companies quickly responding to me when I need answers, help, action.
By the way, clear and correct writing is a way to gauge intelligence, too. In that respect, you've failed my tests.
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Herpderp.
I "like" facebook because it got me in contact with a friend that I hadn't spoken to since I left england when I was in the 6th grade.
I "like" facebook because some of my friends, including my significant other, make funny posts or post funny pictures.
I "like" facebook because with my busy personal life, where I have *maybe* 2 1/2 days of free time to myself per week, I can easily keep up with my friends and they don't have to feel rushed or pressured to talk to me right away.
Nothing that I put up on FB is anything that I'm worried about hiding. Besides, if someone of any relative importance wants to find out something about me, they will. Do you honestly think you're invisible? You fall under the same rules that I do.
Re:I won't by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-29 05:32 · Score: 1

People with real social lives don't need to whore for attention online with internet sound bites.
Re:I won't by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
I am neither on Twitter nor on Facebook, and...
1. I have a girlfriend
2. I am routinely invited to parties
3. I have friends who share various interests with me
4. I talk to my friends, family, girlfriend, acquaintances, etc.
So what was that about people with social lives? Where I am from, one's social life is not defined by some website's list of followers, friends, freaks, or whatever else.
--
Palm trees and 8
Re:I won't by MrHanky · 2012-01-29 05:38 · Score: 0

"+5, insightful" for popular prejudices. Good to see Slashdot's echo chamber still being in full effect. That is, after all, what freedom is all about.
Re:I won't by Hentes · 2012-01-29 05:41 · Score: 1

Many people use social sites as a communication tool. It might not be optimal, but for communication you need a platform that most people can and do use, otherwise you will have lengthy discussions with yourself on a service nobody uses.
Re:I won't by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:43 · Score: 2

This is a false dichotomy. Some people actually speak to their friends face to face, or using the email system, IM system, telephone system, etc. You do not need a service or a system at all, just need a functional mouth and air (or to be fair to deaf or mute people, functional hands).

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:I won't by onjulic · 2012-01-29 05:47 · Score: 1

You needed a CB radio, something you could not use for anything else. Most CB's were installed in cars. Base units cost more, as did hand held models. Buying a model for a car and using it in the home? Possible, but not for the average person. Twitter? All you need is a phone or a computer -- something many people already have. The "entry" into Twitter is cheaper/easier, which is why it might be more widespread, but I think the comparison is valid.
Re:I won't by Hentes · 2012-01-29 05:57 · Score: 1

Believe me I speak to my friends often, but sometimes I just don't feel like traveling to the other side of the country just to have a talk. There is a reason communication tools were invented, and while you are lucky to have all your friends within speaking distance back in the cave most people are not like that. Email and IM are good for different purposes, but the nice thing about Twitter is that it combines the advantages of both. It's fast enough for realtime chat but does not require all parties to be online all the time, and it's trivial to have a conversation with multiple people.
Re:I won't by mvar · 2012-01-29 05:58 · Score: 1

The saddest thing about twitter & fb is that they are used by the majority of the teenagers, who in all their enthusiasm to talk-connect-post photos with others and lacking the experience needed to discriminate what one should and what one shouldn't post in the web about himself, they have no sense of the value of privacy. And when they finally "get it" after a few years, it will probably be too late for them
Re:I won't by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-01-29 06:00 · Score: 1

Had to work a little too hard to get friends/followers, dint'cha?

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I won't by camperslo · 2012-01-29 06:45 · Score: 1

I think one of the reasons CB had as big of a share as it did, was the relative lack of other options. There were no cell phones. (Even long distance phone calls were expensive) Radiotelephones were extremely expensive to use, and ham radio required passing a test involving regulations and technology (and Morse code at that time). Of course the ways people interact now are more diverse.
It's ironic that efforts to throttle/censor expression or unrest may very well fuel feelings of dissent. Having a government of the people, by the people, for the people is a very precious thing. The more we deviate from that, the more we're asking for trouble.
Solutions? Well it seems many of those with the wealth need to be pouring some back more back in ways that help the future. And by that I don't mean a focus on their getting a still bigger piece of the piece, but fueling the grass roots of innovation and opportunity. Instead of venture-capital opportunists taking advantage of people with ideas, we need vast numbers of no-strings infusions. It may mean bringing back near Reagan era tax rates (they DID love the guy, right??? Why not accept his tax rates?), but giving credit at better than a 1:1 ratio for relatively small (individually) no-strings infusions. Fuel settings that produce ideas and developing them. Whether it be small grants for things similar to some college senior projects (do it in high school and summer camps too), or community hacker houses (places where people can visit/live to work on projects, exchange ideas). Some really low budget things can be done too. Give kids a supervised setting to take apart electronics recyclables and make things from the parts. Can they make stereos, small ham transmitters, solar energy converting do-dads from the parts in old PC power supplies? Engineer things that can create opportunities in economically depressed areas, give people work even doing piecemeal (perhaps at home) work that's part of another project. It's great that Bill Gates is doing things for world health, but we need others helping to fuel other needs WITHOUT STRINGS. When things are driven solely by profit motive they can go horribly wrong. Look what taking off the ownership restrictions on broadcast outlets has done. (cut the financial strings that fuel corruption, ban broadcasters from running PAID political ads, have them provide only limited fairly dispensed free public affairs time as part of license terms)
Don't suppress peoples expressions of dissent, but work at fixing the root problems.
Re:I won't by ericartman · 2012-01-29 06:59 · Score: 1

Lol my mom worked as a physicist at SLAC in the 70's, when she won CB'er of the year. I still remember how proud she was of that. BTW Twitter? Closed my account.
Re:I won't by Dhalka226 · 2012-01-29 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative

its always handy to have a 'fools identification' device of some kind or another, isn't it?
Yes. For example, I have had much success identifying self-important twats with superiority compelxes by their incessant need to talk about how much smarter they are than anybody who uses Facebook or Twitter.
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 07:07 · Score: 1

I, for one, encourage hot, barely legal chicks to not value the privacy of their genitalia. +1 Like!
Re:I won't by DoninIN · 2012-01-29 07:09 · Score: 1

Amazingly, that will be my reaction as well. The ability to broadcast txt messages indiscriminately, and read the txts of others broadcast thusly. Just doesn't do anything for me.
Re:I won't by DoninIN · 2012-01-29 07:15 · Score: 2

You needed a CB radio, something you could not use for anything else. Most CB's were installed in cars. Base units cost more, as did hand held models. Buying a model for a car and using it in the home? Possible, but not for the average person. Twitter? All you need is a phone or a computer -- something many people already have. The "entry" into Twitter is cheaper/easier, which is why it might be more widespread, but I think the comparison is valid.
Except for the fact that in some very real ways the CB radio was actually useful. Useful primarily for finding out where the police were on the interstate, so you wouldn't get a ticket for going over the new, and much hated 55 mph speed limit, useful for calling for help traveling or talking to your buddies following you in the next car. Weather and road conditions passed from truckers and motorists etc. They certainly created and highlighted a subculture many of us would like to think of as unintelligent and coarse, that is truckers, truck stop folks and the very rural, but CB communications was also very practical. No one has tweeted to me that there was a speed trap around the bend.
Re:I won't by JonySuede · 2012-01-29 07:17 · Score: 1

over or under 30 ?
I am over 30, for me and almost everyone I know in the age group, what you said is true. However, for almost any 20-something I know, the opposite is true. So I postulate that this is a generational thing

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 07:42 · Score: 1

I am under thirty, grew up in the heyday of facebook (facebook opened up to my college the first year that I was there, and we were one of the earlier colleges, though admittedly, not the first). Social media usage isn't a generational thing, it seems to be more of an age thing. the older and more socially mature people become, the less they seem to post on these systems. These days, it seems like my friends are using it as a tool to supplement their social lives. It's a great tool to share pictures, to share the things you find to the people you know will be interested, to keep track of events, but the need to be on there has dropped significantly. In fact, we have a theory that the more people post, the less emotionally stable they are. Keep track of this when you see your friends break up, all of a sudden, their presence on facebook shoots up.
This is all anecdotal, but I figured you may want to hear from someone younger.
Re:I won't by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 07:50 · Score: 1

Actually I am 24, so I suppose that I am a counterexample to your postulate. Why would older adults' social interactions differ from younger adults'?

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:I won't by ganjadude · 2012-01-29 07:59 · Score: 1

maybe not twitter, but there are plenty of "social" apps you can use such as trapster to get the same results

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:I won't by akpoff · 2012-01-29 08:04 · Score: 1

No one has tweeted to me that there was a speed trap around the bend.
True. But a lot of people coordinated #SOPA and #PIPA protests via Twitter. @jimmy_wales raised a lot of awareness about the issue with his tweets supporting the protest.
I'll take a speeding ticket any day of the week over SOPA, PIPA and the current outrage, ACTA.
Re:I won't by Blue+Stone · 2012-01-29 08:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll react. I'll be quite pleased. Because it won't work.
Any censored Tweet will be retweeted, both through Twitter's atuto-retweet function and manually. If Twitter censor auto-re-tweets, then 'fine'. But they won't be able to censor manual re-tweets.
All it will take is for someone in a censored country to mention that they can't see a certain tweet, and someone in a non-censored country can manually re-tweet it.
The censoring country's courts would then have to apply for each re-tweet or subsequent Tweet mentioning the same information to be censored.
All this will do will raise the profile of the censorship taking place and raise awareness in the censorees that they are being controlled by those doing the censoring.
And that will influence those being controlled to become more active in the defense of the freedoms. All-in-all, a good outcome.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:I won't by Errtu76 · 2012-01-29 09:39 · Score: 0

Errtu76 likes this
Re:I won't by thetoadwarrior · 2012-01-29 09:51 · Score: 1

Because that's how things work. If we always acted like our parents then our society wouldn't have advanced as much as it has. I'm not saying he's entirely right in regards to facebook or twitter (especially with picking the cut off at 30) but it is safe to assume communication amongst generations has changed.
Re:I won't by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-01-29 10:14 · Score: 1

Don't get so bent out of shape, he is just another asshat who loves to bash what other people use because it makes him feel superior. He's like that guy who always brags about not owning a TV.
Re:I won't by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-01-29 10:19 · Score: 1

Nice job affirming the consequent. (social_media -> social_life) does not >imply (social_life -> social_media).
Re:I won't by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-01-29 10:22 · Score: 1

Why are you trying so hard to convince some stranger not to use the internet for social purposes? Since you seem so fond of psychoanalysis, let me try my hand at it: you are insecure and afraid that your e-buddies from alt.ponies from 1987 won't like you if you post your pic to facebook. Correct? (About as sensical as yours are at least).
Re:I won't by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 10:28 · Score: 1

No, what I replied to was a statement that calling social networking website users "fools" was calling people with social lives "fools," which is to say that being registered on a social networking website is a necessary part of having a social life (or if you prefer, that having a social life implies being registered on a social networking website).. I am a person with a social life who is not registered on any social networking website (unless you count Slashdot), and therefore that statement is false.

Oh, right, your response was snotty and I am supposed to say something rude to you, like, "Lucky for you, this is not the GRE."

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:I won't by Dan541 · 2012-01-29 13:09 · Score: 1

on topic: I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship. I really miss the old days where the USENET model was popular. you know, not one single company owning it, not one single place to spy on people, not one single place to filter what the people want to say and see and hear. then, web-based this and that came into playing and websites are owned by single entities, not 'the people'. that was the start of the end of net.freedom.
I totally agree, the USENET style model is better.
It's interesting/annoying how many people insist on using Facebook rather than Email. Despite the fact that Facebook is so limited and controlled by only one company. Something I find concerning is how many groups set themselves up only on Facebook in place of hosting their own website, Facebook seems to be replacing the website for allot of people.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:I won't by Dan541 · 2012-01-29 13:13 · Score: 1

Why would anyone own a TV?
When you plug in a computer it becomes a monitor.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:I won't by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 17:10 · Score: 0

Don't be silly. No one liked ponies in the 80s.
Re:I won't by future+assassin · 2012-01-29 18:43 · Score: 1

>Why are you trying so hard to convince some stranger not to use the internet for social purposes?
Why is he trying to convince others that social networks are some gods gift to keeping in contact with people?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:I won't by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · 2012-01-29 21:22 · Score: 1

I'll read any news stories I see about it, mumble and tut to myself.
Re:I won't by nospam007 · 2012-01-29 22:00 · Score: 1

"The ability to broadcast txt messages indiscriminately, and read the txts of others broadcast thusly. Just doesn't do anything for me."
Exactly! We've had LISTSERV since 1986 which does exactly the same thing (without the size limits) but its use has eroded after the WWW was invented.
Re:I won't by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 00:07 · Score: 1

I was thinking this could open up an opportunity for a Twitter competitor. Something with multiple mirrored servers running in a failover arrangement, running on darknets with a web-to-darknet portal as the main site. Maybe start with the identi.ca source code.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I won't by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 00:13 · Score: 1

Kids opening up PC power supplies sounds like a very harsh form of population control 8-(

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I won't by vlm · 2012-01-30 00:58 · Score: 1

I think one of the reasons CB had as big of a share as it did, was the relative lack of other options.
Also it had a theoretical marketing purpose. At least you could tell yourself it was for reporting traffic accidents and finding out about traffic jams. It didn't really work well for that, which is why it rapidly went away. But at least during the boom it had a coherent and believable reason for existing.
Twitter? Well, without twitter, I'd, um, ... use email which is free instead of expensive SMS? Or without twitter, I'd... I donno. It seems to serve no unique purpose, or even any useful purpose.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:I won't by garaged · 2012-01-30 02:38 · Score: 1

This is really weird, I use, and always have, social apps just for fun, is fun to read peoples comments, it's fun to say something to not really anybody, just say it, and it is fun to get in touch with people I have not seen in decades.
Also, it could be helpful to organize a massive event, like a protest, I havent used them for that kind of activities, but I recognize it is a good way to handle them

--
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Re:I won't by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 03:13 · Score: 1

Yeah I'm a 20-something and I don't use social networking, my social life is pretty dead but that's at least partly due to the type of crowd around here. But let me quote a friend of mine who's a total party animal and has a very active social life:
"These days if you ain't on BBM and Facebook, you're nobody. That's no joke."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I won't by mcgrew · 2012-01-30 03:37 · Score: 1

The difference between social media and the CB radio was with a radio, when you bought it, it was yours. There's no way to censor a CB radio (although you could be fined for "obscene" speech if someone complained).
You are correct, fb and t are not freedom-based. If your words go through my wires, I can silence you. I'd like to see a corporationless, governmentless mesh network to replace the internet.
If I had the power to ban something on the internet, I'd ban advertising. There used to be very few ads on the net when it was truly people-driven. Talk about obscenity...

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I won't by mcgrew · 2012-01-30 05:00 · Score: 1

Indeed; we rebel against our parents, who rebelled against theirs, making us more like out grandparents than our parents. My generation rebelled against the war and lack of environmental regulations, the next generation were a bunch of greedsters out only to make a buck and "who gives a damn about anybody but me?", today's youth are out there occupying Wall Street like we did in the '60s and '70s.
Today's youth give me hope for humanity. Their rebellion is completely warranted in my opinion, and I'm glad to see it.
Now if you kids could just get pot legalized...

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I won't by JonySuede · 2012-01-30 05:22 · Score: 1

I took 30 as around here it seems to be the cut off point but it is pretty arbitrary and I assert that studies on that subject are warranted to find the cut off point per quantile per region.

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:I won't by mcgrew · 2012-01-30 07:21 · Score: 1

Huh? He compared twitter to CB and called it a fad. It WAS insightful, and your disagreeing doesn't make it any less insightful.
Remember MySpace? That fad passed, too.
He also said "I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship. I really miss the old days where the USENET model was popular."
So would I. You would rather have one company running your communications? Sorry, son, but that's just plain stupid. If you want to contact me, send and email or text or pick up the damned phone. Want to contact fifty of your closest friends? Trivial with email. I have choices with email and phone providers, but if I want to contact a twitter tweeter I have to get a twitter account. Nope, not buying it.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I won't by mcgrew · 2012-01-30 07:36 · Score: 1

I don't think you said what you thought you said.
Facebook seems to be replacing the website for allot of people.
Allot alÂlot
verb
\É(TM)-ËlÃt\
al-lot- ted al- lot-ting
Definition of ALLOT
transitive verb
1: to assign as a share or portion <allot 10 minutes for the speech>
2: to distribute by or as if by lot <allot seats to the press>
Examples of ALLOT
Each speaker will be allotted 15 minutes.
The newspaper will allot a full page to each of the three mayoral candidates.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:I won't by MrHanky · 2012-01-30 08:02 · Score: 1

Bullshit. "you could spot the unintelligent ones easily. they 'liked' cb." It's arrogant and stupid, and so are you.

Their "common carrier" status by nurb432 · 2012-01-29 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is now out the window. Expect tons of lawsuits due to content posted/saved/viewed. They will now be liable for the content to, not just the end users.

Not a good status to lose, with the upcoming legislation like SOPA..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Their "common carrier" status by countertrolling · 2012-01-29 04:56 · Score: 2

They would be held liable regardless.. It was a business decision based on the advice of bean counters and lawyers. However those who don't react negatively to censorship of any kind will obviously approve of this.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Their "common carrier" status by Mistlefoot · 2012-01-29 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

"common carrier" status is an internal (as in inside the country) concept.

Common carrier often prevent content from reaching beyond the countries borders.

Anyone who lives in Canada sees this all the time with big US providers blocking content to Canada. And the reverse is true as well, where Canada prevents (or tries) certain content from getting in.

Twitter blocking content sent to Canada would not be much different then US superbowl ads being blocked from coming into Canada on the cable/satellite feeds. That it's done for copyright reasons over whatever reasons is not Twitter's issue. That they may choose to try to attempt to obey the laws of the countries they are blocking tweets to (at least I would gather this is why they would be blocking any tweets) has little to do with "common carrier" status.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by mounthood · 2012-01-29 05:04 · Score: 2

Is now out the window. Expect tons of lawsuits due to content posted/saved/viewed. They will now be liable for the content to, not just the end users.
Not a good status to lose, with the upcoming legislation like SOPA..
Appeasing governments will make Twitter less vulnerable to legal issues. Governments will now like Twitter rather than fear it, and have incentive to protect and promote it rather then other ways of communicating on the internet. This is an economic move, buying corporate stability at the expense of the users. RIM, Microsoft, Cisco and many other companies have followed this same strategy of appeasing governments at the expense of users.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Re:Their "common carrier" status by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Anyone who lives in Canada sees this all the time with big US providers blocking content to Canada. And the reverse is true as well, where Canada prevents (or tries) certain content from getting in.
Then why can't Canada do something useful for once and block things like Justin Bieber, Bryan Adams and Celine Dion from getting into this country.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by Mistlefoot · 2012-01-29 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

To add to my above post:

If I ship a bag of weed via purolator courier, purolator has no idea what it is and it is protected. Purolator is not expected, and should not ever, be opening my package to see what it is. When purolator reaches the border, purolator would, as a common carrier, not be able to DEMAND that the package not be opened or checked or what not.

But the grand parent suggests that if purolator allowed the border to stop the package, they would lose common carrier status and that simply is incredibly speculative.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by phantomfive · 2012-01-29 05:05 · Score: 1

They are not common carriers. Most ISPs try to avoid the designation "Common Carrier" because it gives them extra legal obligations.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Their "common carrier" status by MightyMartian · 2012-01-29 05:38 · Score: 2

Still, the decision is baffling. Twitter got huge amounts of good publicity during the Arab Spring, and now they've decided they'll censor based on country? WTF?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by countertrolling · 2012-01-29 05:51 · Score: 2

They might get caught stepping on the wrong toes. They are following orders. They are too valuable as a propaganda tool to just allow to run wild. And "Arab Spring" is about as real as Arab Unicorns.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Re:Their "common carrier" status by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 06:31 · Score: 1

Ha. I used to work for Purolator USA. God, I hope its Canadian brethren is a billion times better run. It took me three months to get my final paycheck from them, among other idiotic issues. One of my bosses used to think that he was working for a front for some Canadian Mafia or something. Sorry, totally off topic.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 06:54 · Score: 0

We had no problem seeing them leave and locked the border behind them. Blocking people from entering your country is a customs or homeland security issue. Why not use some of Bush Jr.'s laws to have them declared as terrorists and their music WMD's? That should be enough to get them deported to Guantanamo. You could chain them up and force them to listen to each others music. The UN Human Rights Commission would probably look the other way just this once.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by stms · 2012-01-29 09:30 · Score: 1

This pushing closer and closer to using a VPN for everything I do online.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by nurb432 · 2012-01-29 09:59 · Score: 1

VPN to where? When all the endpoints are insecure too, what is the point of the extra overhead/cost?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Their "common carrier" status by stms · 2012-01-29 11:51 · Score: 1

Hopefully will be able to find a non-extraditing country with decent infrastructure that also respects freedom of speech. Admitidly (and sadly) that's a pretty tall order.
Re:Their "common carrier" status by kainosnous · 2012-01-29 14:57 · Score: 1

I'm a bit on the fence. I don't like mandated censorship (by governments), but I'm sometimes okay with private entities censoring themselves. The problem here is that Twitter seems to be bending to the will of the various governments, and doing so in a time when it's best to act out against those governments. However, something else that I must consider is that if it doesn't comply, it might have to be banned by those governments, so this might actually allow them to be more useful there. After all, people can still get useful information out by bypassing censorship. In the end, I'm still not strongly on either side.

--
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40

Don't know. by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-01-29 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative

I'll probably go with "continue to not use twitter".

Re:Don't know. by Seumas · 2012-01-29 04:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, since I'm neither a twelve year old girl nor a "professional blogger", I'll probably just continue to not use the shitty service. They can do what they like with it and those who don't like the changes will maybe get a clue and move on to something less fucking inane.
Re:Don't know. by gl4ss · 2012-01-29 09:56 · Score: 1

will you continue(or start to) to ignore to read any news items originating from twitter and twitter like services?
you don't actually need to use twitter to be affected by information released via tweets(slashdot had dozens of stories last year which the original release for company and private individual released information was done via twitter).
I very, very rarely read tweets from twitter. however at least weekly I end up reading some news post for which the information comes from/through some tweet.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Don't know. by kelemvor4 · 2012-01-29 12:22 · Score: 1

I'll probably go with "continue to not use twitter".
I will do the same but at the same time I might also do a lot of not caring.
Re:Don't know. by Seumas · 2012-01-29 15:40 · Score: 1

News items based on something said or released on Twitter are a lot like news stories where your source is "people familiar with the matter" and I disregard them as such.
Twitter has two uses: Attention Whoring (by teens and by professional bloggers who care about bullshit like their "Klout score") and businesses that use it essentially as a press release mechanism.
Neither of which hold any interest for me.

Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:38 · Score: 1

I still won't use Twitter.

Re:Par for the course by heptapod · 2012-01-29 04:41 · Score: 1

I bet you don't watch television and make sure everyone knows about it too.
Re:Par for the course by Johann+Lau · 2012-01-29 04:42 · Score: 1

Exactly.
Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:45 · Score: 0

I don't watch television. I also inform everyone who asks that I do not watch television. You know, kind of like how there was a question in the subject line to which GP was responding?
Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:46 · Score: 0

Yeah but twitter is even more retarded.
Re:Par for the course by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-29 05:00 · Score: 1

it used to be a meme to say "I'm too good for tv" but you know what, you and I both really ARE too good for tv.
you likely have a brain. I know I do. tell me how you can watch that infestation and not be continually insulted by 98% of what's on?
when I was stupid (ie, a youth) I didn't know any better. as you grow up, though, I would expect tv consumption to go down, down and down. if its not, you really should re-evaluate your life.
get online and talk/chat with people. at least that's far more social than the one-way model the tube provides. look at people watching tv and see how zombie-like they become. have you noticed that? do you ever watch people as they watch tv? thought processes are suspended and you're told exactly what to think and feel.
just turn it off!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:16 · Score: 0

I just watch My Little Pony...
Re:Par for the course by houghi · 2012-01-29 05:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Because you don't use twitter this does not concern you?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:18 · Score: 0

You must be a joy to be with socially.
At first I thought you were trolling, but then I looked at your posting history and see instead that you are a curmudgeon who also believes he is the smartest person in the room.
Just because YOU don't find value in something means that it is worthless. Sure there is a lot of crap TV out there, but there is also a lot of thought-provoking and interesting programming.
Even for the crap shows,so what? Maybe I want to take an hour and just relax and be entertained.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your life and focus less on feeling superior to other slashdotters.
Re:Par for the course by vlm · 2012-01-29 05:19 · Score: 1

I bet you don't watch television and make sure everyone knows about it too.
On a percentage basis, almost everyone watches TV, and almost no one uses twitter. But the twitter users only hang out with other twitter users, so they think the whole world is on twitter, because their whole world is on twitter. The TV watchers do use the same circular reasoning. However one group is a overwhelming majority, and the other a tiny minority.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Par for the course by vlm · 2012-01-29 05:25 · Score: 1

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You misquoted him. This is the actual poem:
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me because twitter was failwhale and anyway all they wanted to talk about was celebrity gossip and local weather conditions not philosophy and freedoms.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Par for the course by oodaloop · 2012-01-29 05:32 · Score: 1

Yes. I don't tweet, watch tv, or facebook. I also read actual paper books, by which I mean non-fiction. I do go tothe movies, but close my eyes and sing Beatles songs in my head during the commercials (best way to beat brainwashing, thanks Dr Zarkov!).

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Par for the course by vlm · 2012-01-29 05:37 · Score: 1

when I was stupid (ie, a youth) I didn't know any better.
Its not so much stupid as ignorant.
That TV police drama is actually pretty good. Once you've seen it, you don't have to watch it, or the endless remakes again. I certainly don't. I kind of liked the Stereotypical Sci Fi show, but it got a bit overdone in the late 90s what with about half a dozen simultaneous remake/copycat series.
Not unique to TV... Once you've absorbed all there is from the LOTR and related books, you ... just stop reading them, and start reading something new. Same with any other book. If you really want to stir the pot then you ask why the bible / koran / torah doesn't get the same treatment. I read the bible, once, didn't much care for it, kind of repetitive, needs editing. Also read the Koran, even if it was an infidel english translation (apparently a translation is a major no-no) it had some interesting stories and poetry, I'd recommend it for a read. The books of mormon were ... unusual, not really what I was expecting, to the point that its hard to evaluate. Scientologist scriptures, I read those too.
Kind of similar with movies. That movie, the one with the wisecracking detective partners in a kind of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy ends up with girl, theme but recast into a manly bro-mance with two straight dudes, combined with car chasing and catching the bad guy, yeah that was a good movie. No interest in seeing it again, or the thousandth remake/sequel/copycat, but it was a decent movie.
I wish there were more than 20 or so TV shows and 20 or so movies. I'd watch them.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Par for the course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 06:04 · Score: 0

There's no -1 Disturbing moderation :/
Re:Par for the course by hutsell · 2012-01-29 06:33 · Score: 1

it used to be a meme to say "I'm too good for tv" ... look at people watching tv and see how zombie-like they become. have you noticed that? do you ever watch people as they watch tv? thought processes are suspended and you're told exactly what to think and feel. ...
Original Bumper Sticker: "The more you watch TV, the less you know."
Updated B.S.: "The more you Tweet **, the less you know."
Obligatory Post Replying to Updated B.S.: "The more you Slashdot, the less you know."
** (Choose One or More of: Tehweet/FaceBook/MySpace/Surf/etc.)
Perhaps: "The more you TwoDotOh, the less you know." is better.
Better yet I prefer: "The more you SocNet, the less you know."; which, of course, if true, means my IQ has just dropped a couple of points by making this post.

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
Re:Par for the course by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 03:30 · Score: 1

I wonder if that show is a girly-looking show that actually isn't very girly, like Powerpuff Girls. If so that could explain the male fanbase.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

That's a great idea! by Weaselmancer · 2012-01-29 04:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now that they are saying they are willing and able to police every message that goes through their system, they are now responsible for content. Lawyers everywhere rejoice.

So now if anyone tweets anything illegal or uses twitter in the process of committing a crime, Twitter opens itself up to legal repercussions. If they can censor some stuff, they should be able to censor other stuff too. Failure to do so under our legal system could be actionable.

So long, Twitter. We hardly knew ye.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Diaspora! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:41 · Score: 0

...on you own server

Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:41 · Score: 0

It can no longer be the social force that helped -- at least in part -- drive the Arab spring.

Open source alternatives? Ideally something decentralized, a "twitter" that lives on the back of bittorrent technology?

This is the time we really need to fight for an open internet, that isn't subject to corporate and government whims.

There is an open war on free speech worldwide. SOPA/PIPA were just early skirmishes. There's lots more to be done, but us geeks surely are up to the challenge, are we not?

Twitter? Who cares? by gweihir · 2012-01-29 04:44 · Score: 1

Nobody worthwhile listening to is using that atrocity anyways.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Twitter? Who cares? by AmberBlackCat · 2012-01-29 08:56 · Score: 1

Leave Slashdot out of this.

I'll stop tweeting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:50 · Score: 0

And end my account. Maybe I'll use diaspora more now.

This makes my opinion on Twitter even worse by jperl · 2012-01-29 04:50 · Score: 2

Another reason for me to continue my boycott. To be honest, the only way Twitter makes sense for me is sort of real time support to questions I ask to a company. Apart from that I simply cannot see real benefit for my life.

Simply don't care by thexile · 2012-01-29 04:53 · Score: 0

Whatever on Twitter is rubbish.

Re:Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:53 · Score: 0

People are the force, not technology. Twitter facilitates; it is not and has never been a driving force.

SEEING AS HOW TWITTER IS FOR TWATS, NOTHING !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:53 · Score: 0

And there we have the answer to your querty !!

Orgy of stupidity by vandoravp · 2012-01-29 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems as though nobody who is reacting to what Twitter has stated actually read or thought about the new policy, instead parading headlines like “Social Suicide”. It's easily the most subversive and transparent approach to censorship to date. They are already obliged by law to remove content in various countries, and have done so. The alternative is complete blocking of the service by the country. Until now, complying required removing content globally. What Twitter has done is made it possible to only remove content in the country that requested the block (reactively, like DMCA takedowns), while still leaving it visible to the rest of the world.

Now countries with screwball notions of free speech cannot affect beyond their borders. Also, those *inside* the country will be notified that they are seeing blocked content, instead of just an absence, and the censoring will be documented on Chilling Effects. Before, if content were censored, it would be impossible to see it no matter where you are, or where you pretended to be. Now, people's voices can still get out, the oppression of their voices will be more apparent, and it's still possible to get around the censorship if necessary.

Re:Orgy of stupidity by medlefsen · 2012-01-29 08:03 · Score: 1

Thank you, this whole thing is such a monumental embarrassment. I was feeling quite proud of the community over the whole SOPA thing and now we've exposed ourselves to be semi-illiterate morons.
Guess what folks, there isn't really such a thing as a completely censorship free country. Even in the western world we have laws against posting copyrighted material, denying the holocaust, state secrets, certain types of pornography, etc... If they didn't comply with these laws they wouldn't be allowed to operate in the country. Unless you think it makes sense for twitter to get shut down/arrested/blocked/sued into oblivion in the United States and Europe, this policy is the best that can be done. This doesn't affect whether they follow the laws of China or other oppressive governments. Let me know when they start infringing speech beyond what is currently accepted in the first world.
I even saw someone comment on that horrible Forbes article about this that if Twitter was announcing when they censor stuff, wouldn't that mean that they were informing on people to their oppressive governments. /facepalm
Re:Orgy of stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 09:19 · Score: 0

Precisely! Twitter is helping the Internet to keep doing what it was designed to do right from the start: Route around blockages.
Including blockages Twitter itself is forced to create to "comply" with innane local laws.
Yes, Twitter must toe the line with various national authorities, else risk having no presence there whatsoever. But all blocked posts are only blocked LOCALLY, and will remain be visible to the rest of the world: Every blocked Tweet will instantly be re-broadcast over multiple other (non-Twitter) networks, to eventually reach anyone in ANY region (including the originating region) wanting access to the "censored" tweets.
The cost of meeting local censorship laws will be little more than a few milliseconds of delay while the "offending" tweets bounce out of and back into the region. A nation would have to completely remove itself from the Internet to completely prevent such re-routing.
Twitter has no responsibility at all for data on OTHER networks, even if that data originated within the Twitter network. The laws restrict what they can show INSIDE a country, not what they can send OUTSIDE of a country.
They are, in effect, "smuggling" the restricted Tweets out of the country, then making them freely available for others to "smuggle" back in via any path that isn't Twitter.
Sort of like money-laundering, but for data.
No information will be destroyed: Only slightly delayed.
Let the Censorship Games begin!
Re:Orgy of stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 09:50 · Score: 0

No, it is an orgy of stupidity to cooperate with any censor. Why cooperate at all? Are their servers physically in all those countries? Why not just move censored data to a country where it doesn't have to be censored? But that would require balls.
Re:Orgy of stupidity by jimmetry · 2012-01-29 14:59 · Score: 1

Thank you. Glad SOMEONE in the world is still thinking rather than "DAR SENSURESHIP??? I DUN LIKE DAT".
Re:Orgy of stupidity by vandoravp · 2012-01-29 15:13 · Score: 1

No, it is an orgy of stupidity to cooperate with any censor. Why cooperate at all? Are their servers physically in all those countries?
They already cooperate. Their physical locations in the various countries mentioned in the EFF article require that they comply with legal takedown requests. They are not doing any new censoring.

Why not just move censored data to a country where it doesn't have to be censored?
That's exactly what they're doing. Instead of removing the blocked content for everyone, they block it only for those in the country where it was removed. The content still exists and is visible where the censorship does not apply. They are actually doing less censoring.

But that would require balls.
Ha. Says the anonymous coward.

Where's the decentralized Version of Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:56 · Score: 0

We already know how to make decentralized currency and monitor it, so why not make a decentralized communication service that can't be governed by idiots in suits?

easy by drolli · 2012-01-29 04:57 · Score: 1

i will continue not to use twitter.

honestly: the internet was not meant to be dominated by a few servers. If you now have this situation because you are lazy, then i cant help.

Re:Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 04:58 · Score: 0

Obivously I meant "twitters large body of mostly young and politically motivated users"

Of course, you do nothing to answer the question. You want to sound smart in a subject you know nothing about, and only come off smug.

"Arab Spring" is a farce by countertrolling · 2012-01-29 05:00 · Score: 0, Troll

A low cost way of installing a more palatable friendly dictator. Though Twitter was used, it was hardly a "grass roots" event by any means

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

This will only affect 1% of Twitter... by geekmux · 2012-01-29 05:02 · Score: 1

...so don't worry. Unless they determine that "I'm eating pie" and "gotta go take a shit" are deemed anti-Government, the other 99% of tweets will remain woefully intact.

Re:This will only affect 1% of Twitter... by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-29 05:10 · Score: 3

We can expect the tweets like,"Just got harassed by random homeland security checkpoint" or " Police brutality" to be promptly disappeared.
Re:This will only affect 1% of Twitter... by geekmux · 2012-01-29 05:30 · Score: 2

We can expect the tweets like,"Just got harassed by random homeland security checkpoint" or " Police brutality" to be promptly disappeared.
And much like humans have been doing for thousands of years, we can expect users to adjust to such activity and obfuscate their topics through various methods.
Siri might be good, but no way in hell is she a match for the human mind. It is still the most powerful computer.

Re:Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:04 · Score: 0

That wasn't obvious at all. So you are looking for "open source alternatives" to "twitters large body of mostly young and politically motivated users"?

Re:Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:06 · Score: 0

I believe there's an amazing thing called an RSS/Atom feed...

I will laugh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:06 · Score: 0

And continue not using twitter.

Thanks for asking.

Me neither... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:10 · Score: 1

...because I will continue to not use Twitter at all.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Me neither... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-01-29 06:17 · Score: 1

...because I will continue to not use Twitter at all.
Likewise. I even dare to hope that the regular news media will soon relegate twitter-derived "news" to an appropriate small-print corner. While it preserves the superficiality of any message in the typical tweet, this geographical/national segregation and potential censorship will eviscerate what little plausibility they had.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

last sentenced sums it up, nicely by TheGratefulNet · 2012-01-29 05:12 · Score: 1

"Twitter could have taken a stand and refused to enter any countries with the most restrictive laws against free speech."

here we see a money-grubbing corp sucking cocks of governments, everywhere.

if that does not sway you away from using these 'services', I'm not sure what will. do you have a concience? then stop using these things and stop patronizing these evil companies.

yes, evil. they had something really special and sold out FOR MONEY.

pathetic.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:last sentenced sums it up, nicely by Sabriel · 2012-01-29 12:37 · Score: 1

Twitter's approach could make it *easier* to see what your government is censoring.
I can imagine a browser extension that shows you the "censored" tweets simply by clicking the "This tweet has been removed" text: the extension proxies through another country's service, and you see what your government didn't want you to see. You could even make it automatic.

Bullshit by pavon · 2012-01-29 05:12 · Score: 2

Now that they are saying they are willing and able to police every message that goes through their system

They never said that. They said that if they are asked to take material down, they can now do so on a country-by-country basis rather than globally. Does removing content due to a DMCA request cause you to loose "common carrier status"? No, it is necessary to preserve it! Does removing neo-Nazi material in Germany when it is pointed out cause you to loose "common carrier status". No! All this talk about Twitter opening itself up to liability simply by complying with the law is completely unfounded and ignorant of the law.

If you operate in a country you are required to abide by their laws. Google and all the other major search engines have been blocking content for years. Twitter is doing so in a manner that does not affect people outside of that country, which draws attention to the fact that censorship is taking place, and allows for an easy work-around (proxies) to access the information which has been blocked. It is the best possible implementation they could have chosen which still complies with the law.

built on freedom, denied to others by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:19 · Score: 0

Isn't it ironic that a business like twitter was treated in united states will you have guaranteed freedom of the press. Yet, the company is reinforcing the denial of those rights to citizens in other countries?

Very sad.

Private option by Hentes · 2012-01-29 05:19 · Score: 1

Luckily Twitter has a private option that allows me to whitelist the people who can see my messages.

Re:Private option by Dan541 · 2012-01-29 14:24 · Score: 1

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of twitter?

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Private option by Hentes · 2012-01-29 22:47 · Score: 1

It does of you are an exhibitionist teen or use Twitter as a RSS substitute. I use it to communicate with people I know.

what by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:30 · Score: 0

is Twitter? is it for twits?

Jurisdiction? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:34 · Score: 1

Why is Twitter operating in those countries? How did they wind up in those countries' jurisdiction? Is not the point of the Internet to enable global communication between computers? Should not Twitter's servers be in a country that does not require censorship (that we do not like)?

Twitter is not obligated to follow Chinese or Saudi Arabian laws unless they are operating in China or Saudi Arabia. We criticize the US for trying to apply their laws everywhere, so why not hold other countries to the same standard?

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Jurisdiction? by vandoravp · 2012-01-29 05:43 · Score: 2

Correct. The EFF article points out that Twitter's locations are “United Kingdom, Ireland, Japan, and soon Germany”, in addition to the United States (the “various countries” I was referring to). They are only obligated to act on legal requests inside those countries. This policy allows Twitter to expand its physical presence, without having to then deal with a convoluted mess of free speech laws that are different in each of those countries. And it's not limited to government requests. The bulk of what Twitter takes down has been DMCA-based.
Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:44 · Score: 0

Twitter is not obligated to follow Chinese or Saudi Arabian laws unless they are operating in China or Saudi Arabia.
But they have to follow the laws in the US. And if you think your constitution will protect you, haven't you heard it is just a piece of paper?
Re:Jurisdiction? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:45 · Score: 2

This policy allows Twitter to expand its physical presence
...which is necessary because...? Again, the Internet should obviate any need for Twitter to have servers or operations in countries whose laws would require them to censor their users.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Jurisdiction? by vandoravp · 2012-01-29 05:56 · Score: 1

To meet that requirement, Twitter would have to host their servers on a barge in the middle of the ocean.
Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 14:53 · Score: 0

This criteria would also eliminate USA

I'm not a twit either by Megane · 2012-01-29 05:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not a Twitting Twat, so I can't care about this. Nor am I a Farcebooker.

In fact, I detest the trend of every website to have these obnoxious pop-up "friend" and "share" buttons that go to there and a few other lame hipster sites, such as Redduuhh. When /. added that a few weeks ago, I promptly added the icons image to my AdBlock, though the cursor still changes over that area. (Of course all of sharethis.com was already in my AdBlock.)

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Held hostage by hessian · 2012-01-29 05:46 · Score: 1

What's Twitter supposed to do? They have two options:

(a) Agree to censor by regions on the request of governments.

(b) Have those governments block Twitter so it cannot become a normal part of life in those countries.

We can't blame Twitter for this, much as I detest it and those Idiocracy-style 140 character updates.

--
Futurist Traditionalism

Re:Held hostage by tbird81 · 2012-01-29 10:54 · Score: 1

We can't blame Twitter for this, much as I detest it and those Idiocracy-style 140 character updates.
Yes we can. Twitter shouldn't bow to these governments - if the government blocks them, then so be it.

Twitter will be replaced by mounthood · 2012-01-29 05:46 · Score: 2

Twitter will be replaced with something that has security built-in and fundamental to its nature. Message signing, sequence integrity, and a distributed hosting system are the obvious next steps.

Security needs to be designed in at the start. Changing any type of communication after its widespread adoption to be more secure against censorship and offer (more of) the protections of anonymity has proved difficult. Securing email hasn't worked. HTTP was supplemented with a separate protocol rather then having security added. Phones moved from analog to digital but didn't adopt encryption. DNSSEC is an exception that proves the rule.

Change from Twitter to a new system might take a long time due to the network effect, but people want free speech and the option of anonymity, so it's inevitable.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss

Re:Twitter will be replaced by rasmusbr · 2012-01-29 07:07 · Score: 1

Friendica, Diaspora and others are already up and running and growing exponentially as we speak, which means that technology-wise we're already on the verge of having a federated social web.
The next problem will be to have a federated social web that is profitable for the people who work to create and maintain it. That's a very, very serious problem by the way. Your federated social web is not really resistant if it depends on Google ads, because that would mean that the whole system would have a single point of failure that a government could exploit by putting pressure on Google to ban ad users that don't behave according to the government's liking.

We have better systems by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-29 05:50 · Score: 1

We have systems that are harder to censor and that interoperate with more devices than Twitter. I believe that one of the more popular ones was invented about 60 years ago. Had it been invented more recently, perhaps there would be a patent on it, which would look something like this:

A system for exchanging text messages between computer systems, which can be directed to specific users, with a specific subject line, and which can be uniquely identified by a message ID.

If Twitter wants to capitulate and censor its users, then people can send messages via email, Usenet, IRC, etc., and they can encrypt those messages, or send them through anonymous remailers, Tor, etc. The fact that people says more about how much they care about censorship and free speech than about anything else.

--
Palm trees and 8

The real question by Flipstylee · 2012-01-29 05:53 · Score: 1

If i stand at the top of a mountain and yell to those below,
at what point can i expect to see a helicopter land, present a man,
who covers my mouth with his hand?

Re:The real question by Dan541 · 2012-01-29 14:30 · Score: 1

If the mountain is above the helicopter's service ceiling... never.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

it doesn't matter anyway.. by wormout · 2012-01-29 05:54 · Score: 1

The battle for freedom of the centralised, unencrypted internet is being lost (after the writing being on the wall for decades), everyone who really cares is moving to more hardened, resilient methods of communication. I've seen more increase in activity on freenet, etc in the last 2 or 3 years, than ever.

Twitter... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 05:55 · Score: 0

...why the fuck would I care about something that has no value to me whatsoever

Don't really care by ubrgeek · 2012-01-29 05:57 · Score: 1

The only thing I use my account for is when sites like Macheist or whatever offer something cool for free when you tweet about their event.

--
Bark less. Wag more.

I will... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 07:04 · Score: 0

I might fart, but I fart quite a bit so i'm not what that all means.
I don't think i will do anything else, maybe eat lunch now.

Globalization by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 07:06 · Score: 0

The globalization of enonomy makes no sense if companies bend to the will of authoritarian regimes. It's like opening a McDonald's restaurant in an arab county only to sell local traditional food. They could as well remove the name.

Leave by Stan92057 · 2012-01-29 07:27 · Score: 1

Leave,don't use twitter for a month. No users no advertisers, No advertisers no twitter. Same goes for facebook. Power To The People!!

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Re:Leave by BradleyUffner · 2012-01-29 07:44 · Score: 1

Leave,don't use twitter for a month. No users no advertisers, No advertisers no twitter. Same goes for facebook. Power To The People!!
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the 20,000 people who just joined twitter this hour.
Re:Leave by Stan92057 · 2012-01-29 10:30 · Score: 1

Oh i know no one will leave or quit. Too many followers now a days.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

We don't yet know enough about it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 07:41 · Score: 0

It could result in more censorship and it could result in less. It all depends on how they choose to implement it. If they censor the same number of tweets and go from global to regional that would a decrease in censorship. If they start censoring entire subjects and users in particular countries that would be an increase. We'll have to wait and see.

I guess I'm the opposite by SteveFoerster · 2012-01-29 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think we're in a battle for the heart and soul of the Internet, and that Twitter just announced they're on the bad guys' side. So my response was to delete my Twitter account, tell the company why I did so in their contact us form, and blog about it.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org

Re:I guess I'm the opposite by basecastula+ · 2012-01-29 09:24 · Score: 1

Good job.
Re:I guess I'm the opposite by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 09:18 · Score: 0

Ditto on all counts. Destroy any communications company that helps suppress humans.

Why? by denzacar · 2012-01-29 08:37 · Score: 2

Why would older adults' social interactions differ from younger adults'?

It is explained in detail here, here and here.

Or if you don't have the time for all that, this basically sums it up.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:Why? by priceslasher · 2012-01-29 22:11 · Score: 1

Youtube! Youtube, youtube youtube... youtube? Youtube youtube youtube youtube.

Most users won't care. by csumpi · 2012-01-29 09:00 · Score: 1

Most users won't care. That fake feeling of fame and popularity social services offer, outweigh any sort of censorship and privacy concerns.

I'd go a couple steps further and speculate that most users wouldn't even care if Facebook, Twitter etc would install webcams in every room of their users' house, or implant chips in their heads to transmit all information (including their thoughts) about them.

My profound reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 09:01 · Score: 0

I am going to open my first Twitter account and then immediately close it.

I'll show them!

too good for twitter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 09:51 · Score: 0

if you aren't using twitter it just means you're stubborn. nobody said it was a score card of your face-to-face social life. this is just a new digital platform for very fast communication. i would rather see twitter blocked completely by some local government then some agreed cooperation. it isn't like twitter can't easily be replaced by some less regulated but just as quick form of communciation. we'll see how they want to play this out.

Not a single fuck will be given here by Sycraft-fu · 2012-01-29 09:58 · Score: 1

I've always felt twitter was one of the stupidest ideas ever. I've never used it, and don't plan on using it. So they can do whatever the fuck they want and I just do not care at all.

If they went out of business tomorrow my only response would be "Good."

I'll have to quote the grand master Lewis Black on twitter: "And if you're twittering, fuck you! Where do you get the massive ego to think that anybody gives a shit what you're doing?"

Moving to Diaspora and Identi.ca by leftie · 2012-01-29 11:25 · Score: 1

Diapora is supposed to be out of alpha and into beta within a couple of months. I'll start moving off of Facebook when it does.

There's a few open microblogging options like Identi.ca.

Re:Moving to Diaspora and Identi.ca by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 03:46 · Score: 1

You should check out Friendica too, basically like Diaspora but it's capable of interfacing with many of the existing closed social networks.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

...or care about current events. by leftie · 2012-01-29 11:41 · Score: 1

While you and your friends were not paying any attention to current events, commercial banks got deregulation passed in the late 90's that them gamble with YOUR checking accout balance like a investment banker? They fucked up so bad they crashed the world's economy and doubled out debt in less than 15 years

Being uninformed is NOT cool.

The protest movement against what those criminals bankers is all being organized online.

Ignore Facebook, Twitter and such harder? by f16c · 2012-01-29 12:10 · Score: 1

Is there a way to ignore them harder than I was to begin with? My attitude is that these things have no purpose in the world other than to enrich someone else with my personal information. It's enough that I'm forced to use my SSN to get medical service even after my insurance company explicitly stopped using it. The forms used by every medical provider require it. Now I'm going to give my life story out to any clod on the internet about what I had for lunch that day?

Absolute total bullshit!

--
bob@Osprey:~>

Re:Ignore Facebook, Twitter and such harder? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 19:49 · Score: 0

I bet you don't watch TV either, do you?

twitterdiff.com by trawg · 2012-01-29 12:45 · Score: 1

Creating a service that consumes Twitter posts from a variety of a different countries/regions and notes when there is a discrepancy seems like a great way to automatically Streisand Effect the posts that are, for whatever reason, being censored.

Someone please build that!

Re:twitterdiff.com by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 02:29 · Score: 0

That's precisely what twitter is proposing doing. Marking the tweet as redacted in the counties where it is, and reporting this to chilling effects.

Presumptions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 13:39 · Score: 0

Twitter CEO and "head honchos" make a false presumption.

"One Twit = One Country = One Languge = One Human."

This is a gem! War Winning Information ... about Twitter!

Twitter's CEO and all Managers can now be killed.

Oh yes. Several months of the calander.

Yet. A good kill. To kill such vermin as these .. my hands shake!

Now my life will be completed.

Killing Twitter CEO! ... Tears of Joy for Me.

"CEO ... Prepare Yourself"

I AM MAD AS HELL AND I by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-29 14:11 · Score: 0

WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS KIND OF...ooh, what's that? Is that the new iPad? The iPad 3? wow. Wish I could afford that, What were we talking about again?

Governments have lost their power over information by VTEngineer · 2012-01-29 18:06 · Score: 1

Most of it was illegitimately obtained anyway. The rise of the individual on the world stage is upon us. Free speech is now a threat to government? Wait, aren't they supposed to represent us? Is it until we become uppity? When do democracies become despots? When media companies bankroll campaigns? Bought and paid for. So much for individuals.

Now countries with screwball notion of free speech by unity100 · 2012-01-29 18:18 · Score: 1

Now countries with screwball notions of free speech cannot affect beyond their borders.

you must be mistaken. america is already doing that.

--
Read radical news here

excuse me by unity100 · 2012-01-29 18:20 · Score: 1

Thank you. Glad SOMEONE in the world is still thinking rather than "DAR SENSURESHIP??? I DUN LIKE DAT".

any sane and sentient homo sapiens sapiens on the face of this planet, is tasked with and responsible for thinking exactly like that. regardless of the case, regardless of location, regardless of position.

the proposition that you can be glad someone is not thinking like that, explains why we have so many problems on this planet.

--
Read radical news here

Re:excuse me by jimmetry · 2012-01-29 19:13 · Score: 1

Sorry for not being clear, but it was by no means in support of suppression. It was directed at the way people are taking this at pure face value without really thinking. Twitter is promoting freedom of speech as best it can - by censoring, the service stays active; by allowing the rest of the world to see what is censored, gross neglect of human rights will not go unchallenged. The news make can make it back in the country through other channels, but twitter is critical as a distribution medium, and this is aa close as you're going to get within oppressive regimes.

Right... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-30 02:33 · Score: 1

While you and your friends were not paying any attention to current events

What makes you think that I am not paying attention to current events?

The protest movement against what those criminals bankers is all being organized online.

...because "online" is now the same thing as "using Facebook and Twitter."

--
Palm trees and 8

Was Stalked/Harassed on Twitter by Jason+Levine · 2012-01-30 02:55 · Score: 1

I and a large group of other people were stalked and harassed on Twitter by a user. This woman was clearly not all there mentally (claimed to be a prophet of God among other things). We complained to Twitter but were told there was nothing they could do. Her harassment, apparently, wasn't a TOS violation. So harass normal users: Fine. Use Twitter to complain about something the local government doesn't want you complaining about? Blocked! Twitter sure has their priorities in order. *rolling eyes*

(The stalker/harasser was eventually visited by her police department who told her to get offline and get help or else. She deleted her Twitter account... and is now active on Facebook where she thinks she can hide her harassment better.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

How do I react to twitter's censorship plan? by fyngyrz · 2012-01-30 03:13 · Score: 1

I think they should receive a short sentence.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:Twitter is done.. Alternatives? by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-30 03:33 · Score: 1

Identi.ca running on something like Freenet, accessed through Tor and I2P with a web-to-darknet portal site for convenience?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

#censored by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 04:33 · Score: 0

Like most posters, I will continue to not use Twittter.
However if people who did started tweeting something like "The content of this Tweet is not viewable in your country #censorship" maybe there would be a backlash against Twitter.
Like the SOPA protests, to have an effect you need enough highly visible people doing this.

Slashdot Mirror

How Will You React To Twitter's Regional Censorship Plan?

181 comments