
Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party - joesmo
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/twitter-steps-down-free-speech-party
======
mindcrime
It's funny how a lot of people (especially those of the anti-capitalist /
left'ish wing ilk) cite cyberpunk literature in which corporations achieve a
level of power approaching - or exceeding - that of Nation States... and decry
that hypothetical scenario as a horrible and undesirable thing.

But in this case, what we see is a situation where we'd _like_ to see Twitter
stand up to various world governments... perhaps even the US government. But
we all know that, in the end, there's a limit to how much they can contest the
will of the government because the governments are the ones with "men with
guns".

Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to _actually_ challenge the
governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Or, perhaps it
would be better to say "maybe corporations with enough power to challenge the
governments of the world" is, at least, _not_ a universally _bad_ thing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the
> governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all.

Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be
terminated at a whim by government. If the government chartering a corporation
decides it shouldn't continue to exist, it doesn't exist anymore.

This gets obscured a lot by the fact that the same class of people that derive
the most benefit from the existence of corporations also have disproportionate
power over government, so that this power is very rarely exercised, but that's
not because corporations are powerful enough to resist government or even
theoretically _could_ be, its because corporations and governments ultimately
are run by the same people.

~~~
mindcrime
_Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be
terminated at a whim by government._

Yeah that's the way it works today and in Real Life. Clearly the cyberpunk
scenario is a hypothetical, but it might not be as far-fetched as it seems.

Whether it's a Good Idea or not is, obviously a big question.

~~~
dragonwriter
If corporations were independent of sovereign governments, they would _be_
sovereign governments, not challengers to them.

~~~
mindcrime
Maybe, but not necessarily the _same kind_ of sovereign government.

------
dror
Which is one of the reasons major communication systems should be distributed
and standards based like email, rather than proprietary and run by a single
company.

~~~
GuiA
The problem is that in the short term, it is trivial for a well funded private
company to offer a better product in the eyes of the end user (eg. GMail when
it came out over every other open source mail system).

The only solution to that problem that I can think of is to better educate the
end user, and to make them see that even though company X's shiny product
seems better right now, in the long term there is everything to lose by using
their communication systems. That's a hard fight though.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
In other words, we need to train end users how to accept poor user experiences
for their own good?

~~~
PavlovsCat
Not poor, just less shiny, and even that mostly at first. That is, _if_
everybody used the stuff regardless of it being less shiny, a lot more
development would flow into it, and it might even end up just as shiny. It's a
bit of a chicken/egg thing.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Many idealist developers brush off well designed and feature rich artifacts as
shiny because they simply just don't get it and never will. So having users
use a "less shiny" but more "ideal" artifact isn't going to magically make it
better; the developer is still oblivious.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Yeah, but I don't, and I don't see how that follows from what I said either. I
was actually more thinking of things like old Opera vs. the current
minimalistic trend in browsers - "shiny" to me has nothing to do with
features, and in the worst case features even get sacrificed for shinyness. If
two things have the same functionality, the more "shiny" one wins, obviously.
But that wasn't what I was talking about at all; I have nothing against
beauty, but form should follow function, and function should be king.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Unless you can define "the shiny" as anything more than a self-constructed
pejorative, your argument lacks substance. What is the shininess? Why is it
worthless? Why are users still attracted to it even though its worthless?

Believe it or not, people are actually kind of rational, and pick product A
over B for some real reason. Usually B, if feature equivalent or even feature
advanced of A, has a hideous UX (command line, really?) and/or visual design
(e.g. ugly fake chrome). It might also not be up to date on what is in
fashion, but we don't buy unfashionable cars either unless we are going for
something retro (part of our culture); consider that "the shiny" at your own
peril.

------
monochr
> Last week, Maxim Ksenov, deputy head of Roskomnadzor, took to Russian
> newspaper Izvestia to complain about an unnamed Twitter account that
> "published monstrous things" and called for the overthrow of the political
> regime and the destruction of capitalism. Ksenov threatened to block Twitter
> entirely unless they "listen to us and periodically remove illegal content."

Wait, so calling for the destruction of Capitalism is illegal now in Russia?

That might be news to the quarter of the Duma who are Communists:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation)

~~~
MikusR
There is a saying: Умом Россию не понять (You cannot understand Russia with
your mind).

~~~
estebank
That reminds me of an argentinean comic's line: American: "Can you explain
argentinean politics to me?" Pinti: "Noo, no chance. You have it, you endure
it, but you can't explain it."

------
joshjdr
Is it better to censor an open forum than delete it entirely? This is a hard
answer for a fan of free speech. I reserve respect for those willing to open a
dialogue in an adverse environment. I respect Twitter, at least, for being
open for business and allowing people to post. At least some people view it
versus none. However, one must consider that when a government is allowed to
censor, or “manipulate,” the content that is being seen by its own people, and
possibly the world – then we have essentially created a forum for propaganda
that may not represent how the people of that society actually view the world.
Consider what we know of media in North Korea – are all North Koreans really
in full love and support of Kim Jung Un? Think about how such a platform could
have been used to support the Nazi agenda in World War II. Personally, I feel
that when an autonomous corporation that was designed to allow for the free
passage of ideas and experiences comes under the control of an oppressive
government or dictatorship, that corporation is lending itself to corruption.

------
coldtea
> _There can be no doubt that the Russian government is putting tremendous
> pressure on Twitter as part of its effort to crack down on free expression
> on the Internet._

The case for free speech is important, but it's dissapointing to see foreign
powers with huge resources sponsor whole campaigns and try to influence public
opinion, policy and election outcomes in third countries, trying to get
friendly lackeys in power.

In tons of countries where there are large external "strategic interests"
wanting to rip them off, there are paid (or indirectly sponsored through other
means) "activists" and "vocal minority leaders" that are used as propaganda
personel for foreign powers.

So it's not enough that speech should be free -- it should also be
independent.

------
bpodgursky
> Experts in the country question whether these requests have any legal
> authority

As much as it sucks that Twitter is forced to do this, the government of
neither Russia or Pakistan has a legal system which I would trust to fully
respect the rule of law in this matter--either is likely to simply block the
service if the requests are not acknowledged.

As principled as Google's stand was in refusing to pull an offensive video, it
probably did more to stifle the free flow of information than had they pulled
the "offensive" video on request. At least that way people would have an idea
of which specific videos the government didn't want them to see, rather than
the entire site being blocked out.

~~~
GauntletWizard
No, really, no. Russian users will notice that Twitter is being blocked by the
government a lot more than they'll notice that a few tweets have been blocked.
Twitter has the position, and responsibility, to play hardball with these
governments. A few days of lost revenue from a Russian block is nothing
compared to the lost revenue from an entire nation under tyranny.

Only in China do you have a population so brainwashed that they think these
things are being done for their benefit. Russians have an active dissent. Feed
it; It will bear fruit.

~~~
cnphil
I'm from China and I just don't know how to refute your last line. Google has
been blocked for about half a month now, but average people would not feel a
thing about it.

That's just sad.

~~~
rurounijones
I think that is because China has such a home grown ecosystem for
google/twitter etc. alternatives

Russia? Not so much I think.

~~~
kalleboo
Yandex is the 4th largest search engine in the world and #1 in Russia. I'm
pretty sure they have a large local social network as well but the name has
slipped my mind.

~~~
shrikant
VKontakte?

------
tempodox
The same money-grabbing Ferengi as the rest of the U.S. No surprise there. Any
of us would sell the Constitution to the lowest bidder, just to get rid of it.
Never let anyone's “rights” stand in the way of profit!

------
glomph
Weird to title this as steps down. It kind of implies they actively said
something to the eff rather than passively changed their behaviour.

