Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Ignites Censorship Debate After Removal Of Parody Putin Account (thenextweb.com)
Twitter has suspended at least five popular anti-Kremlin Twitter accounts on its microblogging social network. The move has angered fans of the accounts and reignited the speculation on censorship on the platform. One such account parodied Russia President Vladimir Putin. The Next Web reports that some of the accounts have been brought back to function amid criticism from their respective fans. Parody accounts have resided in the gray area ever since the early days of Twitter. The social network's official ToS permits users to run a parody account of a celebrity provided they explicitly mention on their profile that it's a fake account. From the report: After their removal, social media users took two Twitter to voice their displeasure with the hashtag #NoGulagForDarthPutinKGB -- a reference to the repressive Soviet state -- and it's seemingly worked, as both accounts are back today. Of course, for how long, and why they were removed in the first place are questions that remain unanswered.
It isn't censorship. Censorship is being forced to remove things.
This is just, ummm, pre-removal before things gets that far.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Everyone know they are satire.
Not everyone, at least Euronews, with screenshot:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/...
Euronews had mistakenly used an image from a fake Twitter account for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in one of its TV reports
Why the fuck do people rely on centralised private speech platforms to make political speech?
Because speech that nobody hears is pretty much useless and twitter and facebook are where the readers are these days. Platforms for widely disseminated speech have been private for centuries. Newspapers, TV, radio, etc are all centralized and privately owned in most cases and it's generally worked just fine as long as there was more than one publisher. In fact you don't actually want your publishers to be owned by the government if you actually care about free speech.
...before you prove the commies right that the freedom of the press is owned by the owners of the presses.
What's wrong with "proving the commies right", and what's wrong with the statement itself? It doesn't even need to be "proved", because it is blatantly obvious. In a capitalistic system, workers serve the interests of the shareholders they work for, and journalists are just workers, excluding the few cases where they are majority shareholders themselves. It's very hard to trust the media nowadays. For every news story, I always ask myself: is anybody getting any advantage from this going public? "Cui prodest" is the mindset to have.
Take two Twitter and call me in the morning. Classic doctor's advice.
In a capitalistic system
Thats cute, you still think 'the system' matters.
Let me give you a hint:
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Slavery, whatever you want, doesn't matter, its ALL A HUMAN SYSTEM. Governed by human emotions and human greed.
ALL OF THOSE SYSTEMS RESULT IN THE PEOPLE IN POWER CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE NOT IN POWER AND DRAWING RESOURCES AWAY FROM THEM.
ALL OF THEM ARE CORRUPT because THE PEOPLE RUNNING THEM ARE CORRUPT, BE NATURE.
The people who aren't corrupt and would do it properly ... want absolutely nothing to do with the rat bastards who naturally gravitate towards controlling others, I'm sorry, 'leading' others.
When you start arguing about which 'system' is better, you've already lost because you've proven you don't understand how any of them actually work outside of a text book.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I first saw this news on the BBC yesterday. The account is really funny, and the tweet they quote at the start of the article is nicely representative; I'll reproduce it here for those who haven't RTFA yet:
Don't you understand that there is no right to be heard? Nobody owes you a platform.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can we just route Twitter off please? Nothing of value comes from there. Its bad enough we have to hear the news reading celebrity tweets or see inane comments scrawled across television shows. I find it difficult to even follow discussions when it only looks like message fragments.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Why the fuck do people rely on centralised private speech platforms to make political speech?
What do you suggest as an alternative? Are their any decentralized public speech platforms (aside from ranting on a street corner)?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Lot of rude words in your post and next to none arguments. If it is not a public service, owner can public/delete posts as he wants. He must obey the law (e.g. not to pretend to be someone else, etc.). But he has zero duty to voice your opinion.
You're confusing your own country with the rest of the world. Many major TV broadcasters in the european continent are state-owned: BBC in the UK, RAI in Italy, France 2 in France, etc...
All of those exist along side a huge amount of privately owned media. State owned media is fine as long as it doesn't have enough of the market or sufficient influence to undercut media independence. See Russia and China if you need an example of too much media being State owned/controlled. I don't think media independence in the UK or France is a serious concern.
Surely they are often biased, especially in favor of the current government.
Not necessarily though it's a reasonable concern. I would argue the BBC is remarkably independent in most important ways. I could say the same of others. NPR and PBS in the US is partially sponsored by the government and yet nobody is arguing that NPR is beholden to the whims of our government even in the face of many who would like to defund it. (helps that not much of their funding comes from the government these days)
However, that's not worse than a newspaper or a private TV channel whose owner is a bank or a major industrial group, which will obviously report in a way that serves the owner's interests
Of course. That's why you need a variety of voices so that no single voice dominates the conversation whether it be public or private.
"...social media users took two Twitter..."
Did they give at least one back?
Another questions is why private speech platforms are allowed to transmit information over public infrastructure without agreeing to extend Constitutional rights to their users.
If there's two, there's probably others as well...
Only Twitter users would not know the difference between "two" and "to"... what is this world coming to?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I can't help but to think why there isn't a decentralized social network yet; possibly built on top of peer-to-peer infrastructure. That way, people would not need to rely upon Facebook/Twitter/etc... being gracious enough to allow you to express your opinions.
Specifically, as to who, exactly, wrote:
There seems to be an extra 'w' in there, so either the submitter, the editor, or the guy at wherever the quote was taken from is, at best, semi-literate. I'm hoping it's the last, but the number of semi-literates all over makes it a tough call.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Don't you understand that in the countries where most of these people use these platforms there are laws that forbid governments to go and tell these platforms to shut down accounts just because they don't like what those accounts are saying?
So, why can we parody and ridicule Trump but not Putin?
Short version? Putin will literally execute or imprison Twitter executives in Russia if they offend him. Trump couldn't really do that even here in the US even if we actually were dumb enough to elect him unless someone was stupid enough to directly threaten him. I don't think people here in the US really appreciate just how gangster Putin and other leaders in Russia really are. They have people killed or put in jail routinely. Russia isn't really a democracy even if they've adopted the trappings of one. While the US leaders hardly have their hands clean, they aren't the sort of threat to the media that they are in Russia.
Spoken like someone who can't handle the truth. Death is inevitable. The best we can do is try to avoid it and have fun in the mean time. Everything else can play into that (politics, economics, social issues), but when you're dead it stops mattering to you.
Thus the solution (to all your Earthly worries) really is death. Have fun for now though.
There is no downside to everyone saying what they want when they want, true or false.
Complete and demonstrable bullshit. People can be injured by words. Physically, economically, emotionally and and sometimes permanently. There is a reason shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal. Inciting a riot can get people killed. Fraudulent speech can hurt people economically. Slander and libel can ruin someone's life. Etc. Free speech doesn't remain free for long if the powerful or malicious can injure others without consequences by what they say. It's no different than your right to swing your fist ends at my chin. Free speech is not the same thing as speech without limits and never has been.
You had me until "it is human nature". No, the human nature is not flawed; the system is. Which system? All of them , because fundamentally all systems are based on the same fundament - ownership of all resources, locking them away and giving them only in exchange of "work" or "services".
Time after time we have seen that human nature is highly adaptable and the collective mind [the zeitgeist] is truly a function of the system. We have created a system which is a race to the bottom and then we are surprised when we find ourselves at the bottom. Strange...
In short, Daniel Quinn said it the best: "Those who refuse to participate in the system do not get fed". The whole civilization model in one sentence, everything else is window dressing. Until we reform the vary bases of the system [again to stress that those fundaments have never been changed, challenged or abandoned even when it is obvious that it will all end in tears] there is no hope.
Leave human nature alone, there is nothing wrong with it!
How do you convince people to let you rape them every day? You start by saying that no one is perfect, and that all are corrupt, therefore, just sit there and take the rape.
What total BULL
Anyone that tries to claim that 'all are bad so stop caring', is in fact the CAUSE of the corruption.
Simply because there is no perfection does not mean you shouldn't strive for it. The existence of corruption does not mean you shouldn't look for the LEAST corruption.
Anyone that thinks it doesn't matter is either a total IDIOT, or is directly benefiting from the corruption.
How much were you paid to disparage everything? You getting a check from Putin to spread lies and stupidity about how the other systems, which are clearly superior and less corrupt?
Or are you simply an idiot teenager that knows nothing about the world?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Perhaps.
But, as a fictional character out it: "cutting out a man's toung doesn't prove him a liar, it juts proves you fear what he has to say".
In many cases, making as public a speech as possible and getting silences by the owners of the venue is the best way to make your point. Seen also "Streisand Effect".
Currently, according to the terms of service, parody accounts are acceptable as long as it’s clear that the account is intended to parody a person rather than attempt to trick Twitter users into believing it’s actually them.
Putin's a genius. There's nothing DarthPutinKGB could say that's so outlandishly evil that the real Putin wouldn't say it, or actually do it. So there's no way to satisfy the Twitter terms of service, so the account has to be removed.
You're right, of course. One solution that offers some protection both ways is to avoid CENSORSHIP (prior restraint) and instead impose penalties AFTERWARDS for libelous or otherwise unlawful utterances. That way the people as a whole hear what is said and judge whether or not the government is being reasonable and just.
This is why it bugs me so much when people call any penalties for unlawful speech "censorship". It may or may not be bad, but it's not censorship if everyone can hear what you have to say and come to your defense if need be. Censorship is worse because the public never knows what it is they weren't allowed to hear.
That's a different issue entirely.
Twitter isn't doing anything involuntarily. Facebook, etc are willingly doing what they're doing.
My point was simply that freedom of speech does not mean I can insist that you publish my opinion. You can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page. Why is this a controversial opinion?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You have got to learn the difference between big-L Libertarian and small-L libertarian, mi. Anyone can be the latter, but it takes a special kind of goofball to be the former.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So what you're saying is, you're a different kind of special goofball?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Ah, so what you're saying is, if it wasn't for human nature we could all share and all be happy? Where have I heard that before. We'll just change human nature so that communism works?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This is why it bugs me so much when people call any penalties for unlawful speech "censorship".
Just because someone is able to speak doesn't mean they cannot be censored. To use an extreme example, if I credibly threaten to put you and your family in prison if you talk about me, you are probably not going to talk about me even if you are capable of doing so.. A threat of unreasonable punishment is a perfectly effective way to effect prior restraint even if technically there is nothing physically preventing me from speaking. It absolutely is a form of censorship.
SOME people, in some cases, might not speak if doing so could expose them criminal liabilty. On the other hand, history is full of courageous people who spoke up in the face of death threats. "We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang seperately" wasn't a joke. If you'd like a more recent example, espionage carries the death penalty, yet Edward Snowden exists.
So we can say that criminal liabilty may sometimes have an effect similar to what censorship does directly.
Similarly, some people die from the flu. The flu sometimes has an effect similar to what beheading does directly.
Therefore the flu is a form of beheading?
No, beheading is one way a person can die, the flu is a completely different way.
Censorship is one way to regulate expression, criminal liability is a completely different way.
Criminal liabilty IS a form of "regulation of expression". It's not censorship any more than a frog is a giraffe just because both are animals.
Thats cute, you still think 'the system' matters.
The system does matter. That's why capitalism has succeeded where communism failed. Is there corruption in all systems? Sure. But the average person is much better off under free markets because it takes into account human greed. Invisible hand, Adam Smith, and all that.
Yes, indeed I am.
You are welcome on my lawn.
OK, from now on, I'll send you my comments to post. And I'm going to give you a t-shirt with my message on it and you have to wear it.
Dumb fuck.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Vladimir Ras Putin
:)
He doesn't want people to know that, though.
...crap, as it was widely proven by the recent global financial crisis.
Bad things happen in any system. But overall, communism was a dismal failure compared to capitalism and free markets.
Excluding tiny petro-states like Qatar and fiscal havens like Luxembourg, the richest country in the world by per-capita GDP is Norway
"On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You think that helps?
Also:
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state and social democracy country featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors."
Seems like they didn't abandon capitalism and free markets completely, now did they?
And:
"The egalitarian values of Norwegian society have kept the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies as much less than in comparable western economies."
Well good for them. But for every Norway there are countless failing socialist states, and no example of a successful communist country, but rather countries that have improved after adopting free market ideas. Go figure.
Just because a lot of people are at my house doesn't mean I have to let you in just because you want to talk to them.
Is this really hard for you to understand? You have a right your speech, but you don't have a right to come on my property to deliver your speech. And whether or not you like the idea of private property, that's exactly what Facebook happens to be.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sure it does, but not that much. The energy sector's contribution to Norway's GDP is 20%. What about the remaining 80%?
It also accounts for 50% of their exports. Those numbers are quite dominating. And since government spending is part of GDP, it would seem like the energy income gets double-counted if they use cash from energy to supply government benefits. I'd have to see how this number is calculated.
If you call "capitalist" a system where the government controls the 5 largest companies, manages 50% of the GDP in public expenditure, and puts heavy tariffs on agricultural imports (free market?!), then I'm very capitalist too! I posted hard statistics to prove my point, not adjectives.
They described it as "mixed", because you can flip the stat around and say they don't control 50% of the GDP, and outside of key sectors like energy they let capitalism and the free market work, with the exception of tariffs. And with regards to tariffs, that doesn't mean they don't have free markets within the country.
These numbers also don't take into account the kind of lifestyle the median Norwegian has. What kind of home can he afford? How much discretionary spending does he have? What does it cost to be consumer items? They may be "rich" in government benefits, and poor in consumer benefits.
Like, for example: Finland (government expenditure: 58% of the GDP), Denmark (53%), France (57%) and Sweden (49%)? Sure, they must be so poor and sorry not to have tea party drunkards in power.
https://mises.org/blog/if-swed...
Now look at a country like China, and all the benefits they received by loosening state control and moving towards capitalism and free markets. Then look at countries like Greece and Venezuela.
Stretch your mind a little...
No, the human nature is not flawed; the system is.
Leave human nature alone, there is nothing wrong with it!
That doesn't sound like Evtim's suggesting that we need to change human nature, as you put it. So let's go back to the line you're probably thinking of:
Time after time we have seen that human nature is highly adaptable
If we try to analyze this line in the context of the other two, the only meaning that we can sensibly derive is that capacity for change is part of human nature itself — it is only our sclerotic ideological system that, like all other systems, denies individual agency for change. Look at people who don't benefit from our systems or who grew up on the margins of them, and see a remarkable plasticity regardless of whatever little else they may have in common, even if they often use that flexibility to thoroughly fuck themselves over.
Obviously this is not a Marxist idea. Communists, as I'm sure you well know, produced a system that was remarkable in its denial of individual ability (and desire!) to escape societal determinism, above and beyond even all the other rigid dogmas of its day.
ALL OF THEM ARE CORRUPT because THE PEOPLE RUNNING THEM ARE CORRUPT, BY NATURE.
Romans 5:12, amirite?
ou can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page.
I am willing to bet you absolutely could call them up and demand whatever you like. They don't have to do what you ask, but no one stops you from calling them and requesting whatever thing you like.
http://www.nytimes.com/content...
http://www.breitbart.com/adver...
I found contact forms available on both pages, though you might get interesting reactions from the advertise with us link at Breitbart.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
HAHAHA, Who's delusional? Let's take a vote and see who Slashdot thinks is delusional. Every non-AC that says that your arguments are right counts as a point, every AC that agrees with you is a point in my favor.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But that's not what some of the posters above were suggesting. They seemed to believe that the media outlet must accede to such demands. Indeed, it sounds like they're suggesting that even requiring a phone call or filling out an online form amounts to prior restraint and sensor sheep.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That is 6-0, looks like you are losing already.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm afraid you have no clue about what the GDP actually is, and how it is calculated. Nothing is "double counted", and State-owned enterprises are never accounted as part of the government "budget", they have their own assets and debts, their own revenues and expenditures, they release their own quarterly reports, and their money doesn't go to welfare, except the taxes they obviously pay, just like any other company.
So 20% of GDP is the energy sector, and a big chunk of that money gets collected as taxes, and then those taxes are used to fund welfare services, which are also counted as GDP. Where am I wrong?
Anyways, flip whatever you want, if that's what you call "capitalism and free markets" (with the "exception of tariffs", lol), then I'm ok with that, but neoliberal economists really are not.
Mixed is mixed. If capitalism and free markets were so horrible, then why doesn't Norway abandon them completely?
For what bizarre reason would they ever want to join a nation with lower life expectancy, skyrocketing obesity, a shrinking middle class, 15 million people without healthcare, and kim katrashian on tv?
Obesity is a modern Western diet problem that is growing around the world, including countries like France, but ultimately it's a personal choice, as is what you watch on TV. Not sure how any of that counters how they are economically poorer. And life expectancy is still pretty high for the United States (82 vs 79 for France vs US, for example), so big whoop. And the population of the United States is over 300 million, so 15 million uninsured is less than 5%, and I imagine that number is continuing to change under Obamacare.
Why do you have no answers for China's dramatic improvement when they moved towards capitalism and free market ideas? Why do you have nothing to say about countries like Greece and Venezuela?
You're wrong because the items that compose the yearly GDP are only accounted for ONCE, either as the revenues generated by the economic system, or according to how these revenues are spent or invested by the government, companies and consumers, so by definition nothing is double-counted, it's two ways to analyze the same thing. This confirms what I was saying before: you have no clue of what the GDP actually is and how it is calculated, hence you shouldn't have even started arguing about it .
I saw that the definition of GDP included government spending, so I made a guess as to how it might be double counted. I didn't pretend to be an expert on the subject.
You, on the other hand, despite being arrogant and calling me clueless, merely assert nothing is double counted, but offer no evidence to the contrary. Since exports count towards GDP, and result in tax revenue for the government, and government spending counts towards GDP, how could it be the case that the 20% GDP from energy doesn't result in other GDP that isn't accounted for under energy?
As a simple example, if they sell $100 worth of oil, and tax it for $50 to spend on social welfare, then GDP here would be $150, the oil would be 2/3 of GDP and social welfare 1/3 of GDP, but all the money spent would have been generated through the sale of the oil.
Because non-stategic businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, can be operated by private entities without damaging the public well-being or increasing wealth inequality, especially in a country where half of the economy is government-run, and the other half is heavily regulated.
In other words, a mixed economy with free markets and capitalism work better than complete state control.
Nope, 79 years is not "pretty high" at all in the western world, and a 3-year difference (and even more with respect to other countries) is pretty relevant, since western countries should be supposed to enjoy very similar living standards, technology and, most importantly, healthcare services.
82 vs 79 is pretty similar, but I understand you wish to hype up any difference at all. You're talking about a 3.8% difference. If 3 years is such a big deal, is it a big deal that Norway is 2 years behind Japan, which is at 84?
Nope, obesity is really a US problem, not "western
No, it really is Western. The US may be leading the charge, but rates have increased dramatically in European countries. You ignored the France article and instead pointed to another article, which is probably based on old data. Here, have another one.
I don't know: maybe because the Chinese government owns roughly 70% the Chinese stock market capitalization? [..] Do you know what the big problem of the internet is? It's easy to be ridiculed if you're not informed. Have a good weekend.
Yes, any idiot can ridicule somebody by selectively looking at data. Congratulations. But what you haven't addressed is that China did in fact move away from communism and towards capitalism and free markets with great success, as is widely acknowledged.
Also don't see any mention about my Venezuela link, with people rioting for food in the socialist paradise country of price controls (long live the revolution!), nor any rebuttal to failing socialist states like Greece.
7-0 keep it up, you are making me win one post at a time!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
8-0, you are losing fast. Every time you agree with yourself is a point for me, as if you really were right, you wouldn't need to agree with yourself, everyone would be logging in to profess how awesome your solution is.
Keep it up, I think I should shut it down at 10, as you are embarrassing yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
9-0, keep it up, you are about to lose the argument completely!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yay, I win. It looks like you lose the argument by an actual measurable amount.
Thank you for finally admitting that you are wrong, and I am right.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That's 3.
You really suck at this game don't you?
You just don't get it, no one thinks you are winning an argument, only you delusionally posting as some imaginary third party. You have never made an understandable argument that hasn't been completely trashed, but you will keep posting your garbage and claiming you won!
I will win again, can you even score a point this time?
https://slashdot.org/comments....
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?