On Saturday, Twitter admitted that it is actively working with the Indian government to censor criticism of its handling of the pandemic as the number of cases and deaths continues to skyrocket. There are widespread reports that the Indian government has misrepresented the number of deaths and the true rate of cases could be as much as 30 times higher than reported. The country has a shortage of beds, oxygen, and other essentials due to a failure to adequately prepare for a new surge. Not surprisingly, the Indian government has moved to crackdown on criticism. This included a call to Twitter to censor such information and Twitter has, of course, complied. With the support of many Democratic leaders in the United States, Twitter now regularly censors viewpoints in the United States and India had no trouble in enlisting it to crackdown on those raising the alarm over the government handling of the crisis.
Buried in an Associated Press story on the raging pandemic and failures of the Indian government are these two lines:
“On Saturday, Twitter complied with the government’s request and prevented people in India from viewing more than 50 tweets that appeared to criticize the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The targeted posts include tweets from opposition ministers critical of Modi, journalists and ordinary Indians.”
The article quotes Twitter as saying that it had the power to “withhold access to the content in India only” if the company determined the content to be “illegal in a particular jurisdiction.” Thus, criticism of the government in this context is illegal so Twitter has agreed to become an arm of the government in censoring information.
Keep in mind that that some of this information could be true and actually protect lives. It is not “fake news” but efforts by journalists and others to disclose failures by the government that could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Twitter’s policy states:
Content that is demonstrably false or misleading and may lead to significant risk of harm (such as increased exposure to the virus, or adverse effects on public health systems) may not be shared on Twitter. This includes sharing content that may mislead people about the nature of the COVID-19 virus; the efficacy and/or safety of preventative measures, treatments, or other precautions to mitigate or treat the disease; official regulations, restrictions, or exemptions pertaining to health advisories; or the prevalence of the virus or risk of infection or death associated with COVID-19. In addition, we may label Tweets which share misleading information about COVID-19 to reduce their spread and provide additional context.
Here critics are saying that Twitter is acting in coordination with the Indian government to censor criticism of its response — criticism that could expose “significant risks of harm” from government neglect. Moreover, Twitter does not appear to be merely flagging the tweets but blocking them at the behest of the government like an out-sourced censor bureau.
This is the face of the new censors. The future in speech control is not in the classic state mdia model but the alliance of states with corporate giants like Twitter. Twitter now actively engages in what Democratic leaders approvingly call “robust content modification” to control viewpoints and political dissent.
When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.
In that hearing, members like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pressed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their platforms: “What are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your platforms after he stops being president, will be still be deemed newsworthy and will he still be able to use your platforms to spread misinformation?”
Rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, like a type of software upgrade. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship.
What is fascinating is how social media companies have privatized censorship. These companies now carry out directives to censor material deemed unlawful or fake or misleading by those in power. The company also shows no compulsion to protect free speech. When India calls for censorship, it just shrugs and say that the dissenting views are now illegal.
In the meantime, liberals now support crackdowns on free speech and corporate power over viewpoint expression.
We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.
Liberals now embrace censorship and even declared that “China was right” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not regulate private companies so this is not an attack on free speech. Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively defined by the First Amendment. Censorship by Internet companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free speech advocates. Some may willingly embrace corporate speech controls but it is still a denial of free speech.
This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist. Twitter is now unabashedly and unapologetically a corporate censor. The question is whether the public will remain silent or, as some, actually embrace the new Orwellian order of “robust content modification.”
This is par for the course for Twitter, which, along with Facebook and Instagram, comprise the leading lights of the social-media thugocracy. The politics of those three companies are Hard-Left Democrat, and they don’t hesitate to censor–or bar from posting permanently–anyone who disagrees with their worldview and/or makes a post criticizing them. I know of that first-hand because the You-Know-Whats did it to me on Twitter a couple of years ago. There was nothing obscene, profane, libelous, or untrue in what I posted. I just told them what they were–biased, intolerant, Hard-Left Democrats. Which, of course, they are.
Some thug @ Twitter took my post down and barred me from posting. I don’t know how long I was kept out, but it didn’t matter to me. This leaders of this cartel–Twitter, Facebook, Instagam–are market-rigging, anti-democratic totalitarians. They have a monopoly, and they should be regulated with a heavy hand, just as if they were public utilities. I’m a pro-free-markets/minimum-regulation guy, but these people are not. They should be brought to heel. In fact, if I had my way, they would be both broken up AND regulated.
It’s worth noting the damage these you-know-whats have done to traditional newspaper-publishing. They have crippled that industry. But, at least in journalism, there is a long tradition of tolerance for differing opinions. . .except, in recent years, at the New York Times. In the social-media cartel (I’m excluding Parler from that group), there is no tolerance whatsoever.
“The politics of those three companies are Hard-Left Democrat”
BS. Facebook in particular helped to elect Trump in 2016.
Liar. The only thing FB did was fail to do enough to keep him from getting elected. They’ve taken major steps since to make sure that won’t happen again. And the Marxists applaud.
“. . . they would be both broken up . . .”
What Twitter did was wrong. What you’re advocating is monstrous. You don’t like a private company’s policies, and your remedy is for the government to confiscate that company’s property. I assume you know what type of political-economic system uses such “remedies.”
“I’m a pro-free-markets . . .”
No, you are not. You are pro-free markets when it suits your desires. When some private company thwarts your desires, you demand that the government proactively use its police power to punish that company.
“This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist.”
The actual problem is that these companies are too large. They should be broken up.
They provide huge megaphones for misinformation, and they also make it easy for people to block content they don’t want to hear, so Justice Brandeis’s classic response — “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” — simply doesn’t work: the additional speech is blocked while the falsehoods are amplified. Of course, there also isn’t “enforced silence,” only the removal of a megaphone.
Until Turley discusses the megaphone and blocking features, his articles don’t fully deal with the key issues.
He should also deal with the fact that these are publicly-traded companies, and their goal is to make money for their shareholders. They are going to do what they believe is best for them, not what’s best for society.
We are starting to look like old WW2 movies.
The Nazis in power and the sheep listening to Goebbels, while the “Good Germans” listened to the BBC.
Now we just have to keep working on developing honest news channels that are not controlled by the Nazis (sorry, the Left).
As we know, the Left feels and advocates that the government has a positive obligation to affirmatively stamp out “racism”, including and most especially “racism” by private corporations, associations and individuals. The government has taken this to heart (does it have a heart?) and has spent decades criminalizing every conceivable aspect of “racism”, down to simply thinking “racist” thoughts (“hate”). I see no reason or legal obstacle to placing on government the same obligation to force private corporations, associations and individuals to refrain from political censorship. Let’s just call it “Critical Speech Theory” and see if we can get some traction.
“Let’s just call it “Critical Speech Theory” . . .”
For truth in advertising, call it what it really is: Fascism — in the service of your pet cause.
Twitter is sowing the seeds of its own competition.
We will end up with two internets: one Lefty, dishonest, full of hate, and satisfied.; the other, conservative, honest and curious.
LMAO that you think the world splits into “Lefty, dishonest, full of hate, and satisfied.; the other, conservative, honest and curious.”
Some people on the left AND right are “dishonest, full of hate, and satisfied.”
Some people on the left AND right are “honest and curious.”
If you were honest, you’d have no problem saying so.
A
People are good and bad.
Some on the right are bad, even terrible.
But today, the Right is on the side of the angels; we are fighting for the United States.
Neither is on the side of the angels, and both are fighting for the United States.
Twitter is a Communist platform.
Seriously, on what planet is a privately owned, for-profit entity in any way “communist “? That is a loony proposition.
Wow are you narrow minded. As if communism couldn’t be advocated or practiced by a corporation. Communism and corporations (especially corporations acting on behalf of Congressional Marxists), can indeed coexist.
No, communism and privately-owned profit-driven companies cannot coexist. Privately-owned profit-driven companies are central to capitalism and antithetical to communism.
Whether you like it or not, Twitter is a privately-owned social media company, not a news organization. It can choose to post or leave out the tweets it wants based on its own policies. If you don’t like it, you have the freedom to move to another platform. As a private company, Twitter owes various political POV’s nothing, @JonathanTurley, so, just as you are free to post what you want on your blog and send it out on Twitter, Twitter is free to accept or not accept it on their platform.
You just proved his second to last paragraph. Bravo.
I see this argument all the time and it’s weakness is that you fail to see that our elected officials are using a work around of the First Amendment’s prohibition on censorship in pressuring private companies to do their dirty work for them. Censorship is censorship irrespective of its origins. And it’s just as dangerous. Why do you excuse this violation of your rights?
“Censorship is censorship irrespective of its origins.”
I’ll believe that when I see the local church allowing an Imam to preach Islam at the church, when I see a local grocery store allowing people to stand inside the store and encourage shoppers to shop elsewhere, …
Censorship by non-governmental entities has existed since our founding. The government cannot and should not force non-governmental entities to host speech they don’t want to host.
Government actors and laws also shouldn’t insist that non-governmental entities censor statements and stories that they don’t like.
What laws “insist that non-governmental entities censor statements and stories that they don’t like”?
Stay tuned — laws are coming. Leftists are emboldened because they think they have a “mandate.”
Cuin might be right if:
o Twitter was not an oligopoly sponsored by the government’s relaxation of anti-trust laws for internet companies.
o Twitter was not run by the hard left that’s more loyal to Beijing than the Bill of Rights.
o Jack Dorsey was not a creep.
But Cuin is wrong on all three counts.
Twitter is run by COWARDS for COWARDS.
Twitter is run by capitalists for capitalists.
Twitter is run by monopolists for Beijing.
Those monopolists are capitalists, not communists. Break up the monopoly.