The new censorship technology announced by Twitter allows the company to block tweets or users on a country-by-country basis. Previously, blocking tweets had to be done globally, meaning if an oppressive regime asked Twitter to remove a tweet or block a user, it had to be done for everyone in the world. Now, Twitter can remove that tweet in that country, but allow the world to see it.
But wouldn’t it be better for activists if Twitter just refused to comply with requests from oppressive regimes? Actually, no.
If a government asks Twitter to remove an offending tweet, the company essentially has two options: Comply and block that single tweet or user in that country (while still allowing the rest of the world to see), or refuse and risk the government itself blocking Twitter for everyone in that country. So which seems better for activists? I’ll pick the former any day — it still allows activists to speak to the world at large and draw attention to their treatment. That’s something Reuters’ Anthony DeRosa posits could be more powerful. —Relax: Twitter’s New Censorship Policy Is Actually Good for Activists.
Boston bombings: Social media spirals out of control
Downloading Great Expectations
The Bill That Could Save College Students $1,200 a Year
Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. —Thomas Jefferson
Ursula K. Le Guin: A Personal Take on Go Set a Watchman
In Pittsburgh, science gets playful