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.
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.
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:
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.
So ArchieBunker says we should end Twitter? Do you agree? Tell us now, tweet with hashtag #ArchieTwitter and tell us whether you think we should stop covering Twitter, or continue to use it as a way to connect with you. We'll read some of the best responses on air. Thanks!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you think nothing of value comes from Twitter, then follow some people - I see plenty of value in Twitter, but then I follow people I know create value and I un-follow people who stop creating value. Its a very useful tool - if you don't agree, then feel free to stop using Twitter, but don't presume to think that your opinion means we should all consider Twitter useless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.