Twitter Flags Foreign Policy Expert Tweeting Criticism Of China

Twitter LogoWe have previously discussed Twitter’s robust censorship program that repeatedly has been denounced for bias in taking sides on scientificsocial, and political controversies. The problem is that, when you have an army of censors with their thumbs on buttons to flag or bar comments, the tendency is ever expanding levels of censorship. Indeed, much censorship is not thumbless through automatic systems to remove certain comments. That was evident this week. Not only did Twitter flag a picture of a veteran wishing the country a Happy Fourth of July (presumably due to his combat scars) but it flagged New Zealand foreign policy expert Anne-Marie Brady who mocked the Chinese government.  The incident is particularly notable after Twitter recently admitted to censoring criticism of India’s government.

Brady is a professor at the University of Canterbury and an authority on the Chinese regime. Like many, Brady mocked the recent Communist Party’s over-the-top celebration of Chinese President Xi Jinping. She soon found that some of her tweets were “unavailable,” Twitter’s version of being “disappeared.”

What happened next is all-too-familiar: nothing. Brady tried to get someone to respond to the censorship and received no answer. Indeed, Twitter makes it extraordinarily difficult to reach anyone on such issues. While professing commitment to transparency, the company is notorious for being unresponsive and closed to criticism, even efforts to learn why actions have been taken on such tweets. It was only after Edward Lucas, a journalist for the Times of Britain, inquired that the company finally responded to him rather than Brady.  Her account was then restored without an apology or acknowledgement. Brady dryly noted “Seems like @Twitter may have briefly forgotten they don’t work for Xi Jinping.”

The assumption is that this is the work of Chinese agents who submit a torrent of complaints to trigger a flagging. Various groups have used the same technique to cancel opposing views. Twitter does nothing about it. Rather than have a presumption in favor of free speech, it automatically flags material pending proof that it is worthy of publication. That often means that it does not disagree with Twitter’s own view of certain sensitive subjects. Absent media coverage, the Chinese would likely have succeeded in silencing Brady with the help of Twitter.

As discussed earlier, members of Congress are now pushing for public and private censorship on the internet and in other forums. They are being joined by an unprecedented alliance of academics, writers and activists calling for everything from censorship to incarceration to blacklists. For example, an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

Much of the effort by politicians and activists has been directed at using Big Tech to censor or bar opposing viewpoints, seeking to achieve indirectly what cannot be achieved directly in curtailing free speech. Congress could never engage in this type of raw content discrimination between news organizations under the First Amendment.

However, it can use its influence on private companies to limit free speech. The move makes obvious sense if the desire is to shape and control opinion — the essence of state-controlled media. Controlling speech on certain platforms is meaningless if citizens can still hear opposing views from other sources. You must not only control the narrative but also eliminate alternatives to it.

 

 

 

 

71 thoughts on “Twitter Flags Foreign Policy Expert Tweeting Criticism Of China”

  1. “Twitter Flags Foreign Policy Expert Tweeting Criticism Of China”, the irony of that is stunning. Free speech on the Beijing plan.

  2. make no mistake:
    what happened in 1930s and 1940s germany is coming to america if the the democrats arent beaten badly in the 2022 midterms
    you can deny reality
    what you cant deny is the consequences of denying reality

  3. Twitter banned someone on behalf of China.
    Twitter banned Trump (China’s enemy # 1).
    Facebook banned Trump.
    Facebook allowed ISIS terrorists’ postings.
    Google …

    Even the migrant loving Angela Merkel said Trump should not be banned.

    Twitter, Facebook, Google need to be banned, hacked, …

  4. There are those on this forum who will tell us that a private business such as Twitter can do anything the want. This response is by these posters is always the same anytime that Professor Turley writes about censorship on social (public) media. I offer the same answer that I always give. There once was a little girl who was walking home from school on a dusty road on a very hot summer day. She found herself cancelled from drinking from the water fountain at the local gas station, The gas station was a private business open to public use. The little girl was black.

  5. I don’t have a Twitter or a Facebook account but I accept that these outlets have millions of viewers. They are forums that allow reaching millions of people with your ideas or opinions. Like it or not they have the power to shut down even people with the highest credentials in their field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Marie_Brady. Do we want to be limited in our access to the worlds great thinkers? There was a time when Nicklaus Copernicus was cancelled because he said that the earth moved around the sun. Do we want the cancelers of today who display the same characteristics of the cancelers of the past to tell us what we can or can not see? Those who clung to their ignorance in the past are no different from those who cling to their ignorance today. In Twitters case we find two dangers, their willful ignorance and their quest for the Chinese dollar. If it were a criminal case the question would be, Do they have the motivation and do they have the opportunity?

  6. CHINA OWES THE WORLD $50+ TRILLION

    Any “ambulance chaser” worth his salt would have filed a “global-action” personal injury and wrongful death case against China in January of 2020.

    China is solely responsible for $50+ trillion in actual, punitive, special and statutory damages and 4 million deaths globally due to its release and deliberate distribution of “China Flu, 2019” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

    If China did not commit an egregious act of dereliction and gross negligence, China committed a psychotic Act of War against the entire world in order to achieve global hegemony and domination.

    China, communism and communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are pure evil.

    1. “CHINA OWES THE WORLD $50+ TRILLION
      Any “ambulance chaser” worth his salt would have filed “

      Make it $1,500 and perhaps Jeff would be there.

  7. China is the direct and mortal enemy of the U. S. Constitution, America and Americans.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America are the direct and mortal enemies of the U.S. Constitution, America and Americans.

    China is a brutal, communist, totalitarian dictatorship which oppresses and abuses its enslaved people.

    All entities which engage with China are committing treason by “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    American wealth, industries, jobs, intellectual property and secrets have been deliberately transferred to the enemy, China, by corporate leaders and elected officials.

    America has been sold out to the highest bidder, China.

  8. Social media pretended to be like the phone company, simply providing a venue for people to talk, in order to get lawsuit protection of Sec 230. Yet it clearly behaves like a publisher with selective censorship.

    In the digital age, people need a digital public square. They need an uncensored place to talk. If it’s legal to say in a public park, it should be permitted to be said in digital communication.

    Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram are Democrat companies that insist on abusing their power to limit the information their users are allowed to access with the express intent of affecting elections. They should lose their litigation protection, and be forced to accurately describe their bias in their marketing materials. It is false advertising for them to deny their censorship and harassment of conservatives.

    The Left relentlessly pursues Christian bakers and florists, demanding that they be forced to create custom art to celebrate gender dysphoria or gay marriage, even if it’s against their religious beliefs, while at the same time they demand the right to listen in to conversations on social media and censor viewpoints with which they disagree. They are interfering with other people’s conversations. Censorship is a form of force. It forces people into silence. It punishes people for speaking. It forces a biased set of information to be the only viewpoint available on its platforms. It uses force against would be competitors such as Parler, shutting down its servers. Social media and Google are the monolithic wall against which conservatives strive.

    It all comes down to how the Left views force as a useful weapon against US citizens to get what it wants.

    1. “It uses force against would be competitors . . .”

      So saying “no” is the same as holding a gun to your head?

      An online company refusing you service is the same as throwing you in jail?

      Sloppy use of the concept “force” causes grave harm to the fight for liberty and free speech. Your equivocation between political power (which essence is physical force) and economic power (which essence is choice and free trade) is exactly what statists rely on to increase government control over the individual’s life.

      1. “Sloppy use of the concept “force” causes grave harm to the fight for liberty and free speech.”

        True, however Sam, though I think I understand what you point is, at the same time it seems you are advocating a limited definition of the word, force.

        Force is not just physical power. It involves many other things and can be intellectual, moral and perhaps a few other things. Maybe I missed the point, so I have to leave it to you to explain. Your examples provided a dead end because if they are read literally one would likely conclude they were true, but that didn’t help to define your concept.

        Is my question forcing you …

        1. “Force” is *physical* force — a fist, a knife, guns. Physical force is the essence of government’s power — its police forces — as opposed to private action in the marketplace, which essence is choice and trade. The *only* legitimate use of the government’s police powers is in retaliation against those who have initiated physical force, e.g., a thief, an arsonist, a murderer.

          Some of you, though, want the government to *initiate* physical force against private companies — and you rationalize that use via woozy metaphors and vague impressions of “force.” That is an injustice to the targeted companies. And, apparently, some of you do not realize that a muddled view of “force” is what tyrants bank on to usurp rights and to exert total control. (Remember the “shut downs?”)

          1. “Force” is *physical* force — a fist, a knife, guns. …”

            I see you are defining force in the libertarian ideological manner and that is fine with me, but the word, force, has many meanings to many different people. The force of one’s character can be a valuable force and is nothing like the knife or the gun.

            That is OK with me because I understand the word, force, in that way, however many people are not of the same persuasion and use the force according to other common meanings that are recognized as appropriate.

            We do not have a disagreement regarding force and government. I have posted enough on the subject to demonstrate that.

  9. Just call Twitter WeChat from now on. The company aspires to be Chinese social media, with all its accompanying censorship and propaganda.

  10. why does anyone even read or use Twitter? just go elsewhere, like on Substack or wherever. Stay away from Twitter and FB

  11. Are there any hackers out there reading this blog? If so, why not do everyone a big favor and shut down Twitter and Facebook.

  12. Twitter exercises the same right that you do in how you censor blog comments here, Turley. So we’ll let it stand.

    eb

    1. No they don’t. Size matters. Also, Turley is a blogger with a comments section inviting comments on his column so he us in effect acting like a publisher and is probably not offered the same legal protection as the big 3.
      The size of FB, IG, and Twitter, drowns out all other voices.

      1. ti317,

        No, Turley’s blog works on the same principle as Twitter and Facebook. Turley’s blog is also protected from liability by the same protections the other platforms have. Size is irrelevant.

        1. No you can go to more widely read blogs and comment. Lots of newspapers have much larger online presence than Turley. Hundreds of places to get your comment out. You can even do your own blog, and censure those you don’t like. President Trump is banned from all platforms. Silencing a political voice is the core of free speech. The simple truth, the left looses every time when the enter the battle field of ideas. So their opponets must be silenced
          Or, like Althouse, censure all the comments. Just shut them down.

          But big tech controls all the server volume. That’s what happened to Parler. Amazon booted them from their servers.
          in this case, size really does make a difference.

          1. Actually, Trump is (rightly) banned from Twitter, suspended from Facebook.

            My god, the man fanned on insurrection on twitter. You can timestamp what Proud Boy organizers used to whip up a mob by using material from particular tweets trump posted on 1/6. He said it. They repeated it. The crowd was driven to a frenzy. The man does not deserve massive access to the public.

            eb

            1. Anonymous said, “My god, the man fanned on insurrection on twitter.” He told people to peacefully let their voices be heard. The trend is that Democrats claim they know what Trump really meant, from the “fine people” lie to this incited insurrection lie. A bunch of people broke a window and trespassed into the Capitol, taking selfies. One of them was shot by a still un-named police officer.

              Meanwhile, Democrat voters have looted, burned, burned down a police precinct, lobbed bombs at federal buildings, made blatantly racist comments, seized entire city blocks in literal sedition, yet most of them aren’t charged. Why do these people still have social media accounts after organizing riots?

              Meanwhile, Maxine Waters told people to “go out, make a crowd, make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.”

              There are myriad examples of Democrat politicians excusing, and even calling for more violence. Yet they have access to social media.

              Why do professors who say all white people should be murdered still have social media access?

              Why does Iran still have social media after decades of calling for death to Jews and death to America?

              At least be honest. This was politically motivated. You can agitate to overthrow the government if you’re a Democrat and Trump won the 2016 election, but you’ll be banned as a seditionist if you tell people to peacefully protest. You can claim that every election Democrats lost was stolen, and allege malfeasance, but you can be blocked or banned if you do so in support of Republicans.

              This is a free speech issue.

          2. Iowan2,

            “ Trump is banned from all platforms.”

            That’s not true. Trump just got banned from Twitter and Facebook, and YouTube. He got banned from the biggest platforms which gave him the biggest audience. He can still post on other blogs, even here.

            He doesn’t want to do that because most other blogs don’t have the same reach to as many people as possible like Twitter and Facebook.

            Trump did create his very own blog. He had free rein to say whatever he wanted. It only lasted a month. The reason was because there wasn’t enough people flocking to it. That means his base really isn’t that big. He wants the bigger audiences that Facebook and Twitter have. He violated their policies therefore he got banned.

            Trump can still do his rallies, do interviews on Fox News. He hasn’t been very successful.

            Parler got kicked off Amazon because they violated Amazon’s own TOS.

            Big tech has a bigger footprint in social media. That doesn’t mean they can’t censor whoever violates their policies.

            Trump just launched another blog and it’s already been hacked. Nothing stops him from continuing to create his own platform. He has the money.

          1. Trump can look to his own actions for why he’s banned and suspended. He is *not* the victim here.

            eb

            1. I didn’t mention victimhood. I guess you have a problem focussing in on the discussion. Perhaps those that thought your response wildly successful, despite its lack of focus, might have a similar problem.

              SM

              1. Ha. You’ve borrowed the phrase “wildly successful” from me. I’m so up in your head, Stupid Meyer.

                eb

                1. “You’ve borrowed the phrase “wildly successful” from me. ”

                  Bug, wildly successful is a common phrase and its use is ubiquitous. You might not recognize that because you don’t read.

                  Here is a headline: “Nolte: Trump’s Wildly Successful First Year Again Exposes #NeverTrump as Amoral Saboteurs”

                  And another…

                  “COMMENTARY: A wildly successful first 100 days for Donald Trump”

                  Maybe you borrowed the phrase from all those comments about Trump’s ‘wildly successful presidency’.

                  SM

    2. If you want to know who rules you
      observe who you are not permitted to question or criticize.
      Twitter obviously bows to China, China obviously dictates their behavior, and people like you support that because…. you are inherently weak, have sadomasochistic tendencies, and you love to submit to any totalitarian overload that Jack Dorsey imposes upon you.

  13. Social media is rapidly heading toward a public utility type of regulations. They only have themselves to blame

  14. TWITTER CCP LEFT WING RADICAL CENSORS. Dorsey/Twitter are apart of the CCP, BLM, Woke Party, Left Wing Radical Dem’s all role up into one. The same goes fr the rest of the tech crowd. Eventually they will experience a severe back lash.

  15. I don’t like govt stepping in, but it is clear big tech, like the media, are propaganda arms of the Democrat Party.
    The masses are ignorant to the extreme. Living on click bait and headlines. 90 second sound bites in TV and radio. Their news feeds. They would be Apple, Google, and Facebook. Yes other sources are available, but the big three embed them unasked for. I have Android and Apple. Daily I get push notifications on new items. It takes several seconds to rid the screen of them. A simple swipe does not work.
    I think the market will correct eventually, but how much damage will be done by then? Look at the damage done by the Biden/Obama administration in less than 6 months.
    Denied children at least a full year of education. Gas up 40%, inflation back with teeth, violent crime explosion. 8 to 10 X increase in illegal aliens entering the country.

    All without debate. Thats the true danger. The absence of representative rule.

  16. Remember the Lefties howling when Trump didnt give a loudmouth CNN reporter all the deference that they thought was due?

    Watch the deafening silence from the Left about this.

    “But that was different…”

    Yes, in the first case Trump was involved.

    Lefties have no real commitment to the Bill of Rights.

    Intellectually dishonest people.

    1. Monumentcolorado,

      The issue has more to do with China and how it manipulates Twitter to good effect.

      It involved a large number of tweets that opposed a tweet and clearly algorithms detected that. That seemed to pull the offending tweets out for consideration.

      Trump was not allowed to block critics from his account because he didn’t like them. He was a government official and 1st amendment prohibition on censorship by government officials clearly states that he couldn’t do that.

      Twitter itself is still perfectly within its right to censor those who violate its policies. They may not be consistent, and may not be right at times, but if is still perfectly legal for Twitter to exercise censorship. The constitution does not prohibit Twitter from exercising censorship one bit.

      Trump just filed a class action lawsuit against Twitter and Facebook for violating his free speech rights. Problem is Trump has no case. Twitter and Facebook are not prohibited from censorship by the constitution.

      1. Svelaz

        You are absolutely correct in everything that you said.

        But (there is always a but on the internet).

        Have Twitter et al moved past being privately owned media?

        Bear with me. Is Twitter to public discourse what United Airlines is to transportation?

        United is privately owned, but intensely regulated because it operates in the public domain and is “necessary infrastructure “.

        Twitter et al put their fingers on the 2020 presidential scale.

        Do we want that? Should that powerful interference be protected? Do private property rights trump a balanced election?

        1. monument:

          You have just pulled a page from the Left’s playbook. First, collectivize an industry (e.g., railroads) as a “necessary public resource.” Then in the name of the “public good,” demand more government controls over that industry. In theory, it is immoral for the government to inject its police powers into the free market. In practice, as had been shown countless times over the last 100 years, such government controls decimate an industry.

          i completely agree with people’s hostility toward the Facebook and Twitter policies. They are arbitrary, biased, and inconsistent. However, the principled response is *not*: “There oughta be a law.”

        2. Monumentcolorado,

          “ Bear with me. Is Twitter to public discourse what United Airlines is to transportation?”

          No, because they are fundamentally different concepts. United airlines is not just a private transportation company, it is also responsible for ensuring you don’t die on your way to your destination. If is intensely regulated because it involves safety of people. Twitter has no such risks at all. You’re paying for the service. Airlines can still deny you services if you violate their policies as well. Rude or belligerent passengers get kicked out. Refusing to obey flight attendants gets you kicked out.

          Twitter did not put their finger in the scale of the 2020 election. It was Trump’s own fault that he got kicked out. He violated their policy just as a passenger violation airline policy can get removed or even banned from flying anywhere with that particular airline.

          Just like Twitter, you don’t have a constitutional right to fly. But if you paid for a seat you do have certain rights guaranteed. If policy is not violated.

          “ Do we want that? Should that powerful interference be protected? Do private property rights trump a balanced election?”

          Unfortunately yes it should be protected because the constitution only applies to government. Not private entities. They can influence an election if they chose to. But the reality is it’s the people who violate a policy they agreed to in the first place that doesn’t protect them from being censored.

          1. ‘ Refusing to obey flight attendants gets you kicked out.”

            Can they kick a person out because he is a conservative with conservative ideas?

            1. No, but if you disturb the peace in sharing those ideas they can kick you out. Much like the saying ‘it’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the hitting the ground really hard that does’. It’s not being conservative that gets you kicked out, it’s being obnoxious and destructive that does.

              eb

              1. Eb, plus in an airplane you can’t walk away from the person who insists on letting everyone know about his conservative views. You are in effect a captive audience. The airline won’t be kicking a person out because of their views. They would be kicking them out because they are ruining the flight for everyone else. Which is….a violation of airline policy.

                1. Liberals don’t just say what they believe. They riot, steal and commit arson to make sure people listen to what they have to say.

                  SM

                    1. Maybe you should be looking at the rioting, burning and looting of the left where no Nazi’s were punched in the face, but black people lost their lives, jobs, homes and neighborhoods.

                      SM

                2. Actually, as a former professional pilot I know that the reason airlines kick people off is for violating the Federal Aviation Regulations. Causing a ruckus is a violation.

              2. ” if you disturb the peace in sharing those ideas they can kick you out.”

                If you disturb the peace with liberal ideas, they can kick you out as well.

                The operative words are, “disturb the peace”.

                SM

                  1. “good job pointing out the obvious.”

                    Thank you Svelaz, but you should have recognized the obvious in the first place.

                    SM

                    1. The obvious being Allan is quite challenged in recognizing the obvious.

                      eb

      2. “Twitter and Facebook are not prohibited from censorship by the constitution.”

        Can government privatize censorship so private companies censor things the government is not permitted to censor?

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ Can government privatize censorship so private companies censor things the government is not permitted to censor?”

          No, because that’s what communist governments do.

          Plus the constitution explicitly prohibits government from “privatizing censorship”.

          1. “No, because that’s what communist governments do.”

            By passing a law protecting service providers from liability, the government has acted in a way that can privatize censorship. I am quoting only the relevant part of a long editorial by professor Hamburger from Columbia Law School who is quite prominent. I cannot do justice to his words that take a complex idea and provide clarity. Communist countries do terrible things and Democratic countries can do the same terrible things through ambiguous legislation where the legislators don’t recognize the problems they create.

            “That doesn’t necessarily mean Section 230 is unconstitutional. But when a statute regulating speech rests on the power to regulate commerce, there are constitutional dangers, and ambiguities in the statute should be read narrowly.

            A second constitutional question arises from the First Amendment. The companies brush this aside because they are private and the amendment prohibits only government censorship. Yet one must worry that the government has privatized censorship. If that sounds too dramatic, read Section 230(c)(2) again. It protects tech companies from liability for restricting various material “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Congress makes explicit that it is immunizing companies from liability for speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional if lawmakers themselves imposed them.

            Seventeenth-century censorship, which the First Amendment clearly prohibited, was also imposed largely through private entities, such as universities and the Stationers’ Company, England’s printers trade guild. Whereas privatized censorship then was often mandatory, the contemporary version is voluntary. But the tech companies are protected for restricting Congress’s list of disfavored materials, and this means that the government still sets the censorship agenda.

            Some of the material that can be restricted under Section 230 is clearly protected speech. Consider its enumeration of “objectionable” material. The vagueness of this term would be enough to make the restriction unconstitutional if Congress directly imposed it. That doesn’t mean the companies are violating the First Amendment, but it does suggest that the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.

            This constitutional concern doesn’t extend to ordinary websites that moderate commentary and comments; such controls are their right not only under Section 230 but also probably under the First Amendment. Instead, the danger lies in the statutory protection for massive companies that are akin to common carriers and that function as public forums. The First Amendment protects Americans even in privately owned public forums, such as company towns, and the law ordinarily obliges common carriers to serve all customers on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Here, however, it is the reverse. Being unable to impose the full breadth of Section 230’s censorship, Congress protects the companies so they can do it.

            Some Southern sheriffs, long ago, used to assure Klansmen that they would face no repercussions for suppressing the speech of civil-rights marchers. Under the Constitution, government cannot immunize powerful private parties in the hope that they will voluntarily carry out unconstitutional policy.

            Perhaps judges can avoid the constitutional problem, but this will be more difficult if they read Section 230(c)(2) broadly. The tech companies can’t have it both ways. If the statute is constitutional, it can’t be as broad as they claim, and if it is that broad, it can’t be constitutional. “

            Full article at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851

            1. S. Meyer,

              The argument being made is a pretty tortured explanation. Getting rid of section 230 won’t stop Facebook or Twitter from censoring or removing content. In fact it will make it more common. All section 230 does is protect Twitter and Facebook from litigation by third parties for libel or defamation claims.

              Twitter and Facebook are still constitutionally prohibited from censoring those that violate their TOS.

              In fact the removal of they liability protections that section 230 gives them will encourage Twitter and Facebook to censor and remove content that they can be liable for. They can change their TOS to reflect that change and legally put it in their new agreement that all disputes be done by arbitration rather than in court.

              1. “The argument being made is a pretty tortured explanation. Getting rid of section 230 won’t stop Facebook or Twitter from censoring or removing content”

                Read it again. You missed the entire point.

                The article is quite clear, though the subject matter is difficult. I am not surprised you failed to understand what he said. That should be clear to most reasonably intelligent people, even if all the details aren’t

                SM

                1. S. Meyer, no, the subject matter is not difficult at all. The argument stating the merits of sec. 230 are pointless due to the fact that even if sec. 230 were removed it wouldn’t stop Twitter or Facebook from censoring people who violate their TOS’s.

                  What it WILL do is increase the incidence of censorship to prevent due to liability risks.

                  They can modify their TOS to include that all disputes be done thru arbitration of their choice.

                  Whatever point the author is trying to make is moot because Twitter and Facebook would still be able to censor or remove content that violates their policies.

                  1. “S. Meyer, no, the subject matter is not difficult at all. “

                    That is because you don’t understand the simplest of ideas the WSJ article (Hamburg) presented. I think you have the ability to understand the most basic features of the article, but your mind is so made up I don’t think you can process information that differs from what you errantly believe.

                    Stop with TOS. That is not the Constitutional issue.

                    SM

      3. Svalez, when that censorship makes Twitter into a politically motivated publisher, rather than a service provider for all, then it should lose its lawsuit protections under Sect 230. If social media exhibits content bias, then it’s false advertising for them to claim they support free speech, and to deny such bias. They should be sued, and then forced to disclose that they are an explicitly Democrat organization which will censor and harass conservatives.

        There also should be consequences when Big Tech colludes together in order to block competition, especially from free speech platforms like Parler.

  17. As I understand the news about this issue, it appears that messages were coming in that opposed the tweet. This, twitter said could trigger a flagging. Sounds reasonable. But what if the complaints were organized by China, and that seems to have been the case?

  18. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON I DO NOT HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT. THESE TYPE OF INTERNET INTERPLAY COMPANIES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL RESPECTABLE PEOPLE OF ALL OPINIONS. HOWEVER, LIBERAL ATTITUDES, DICTATES, AND OPINIONS HAVE CURTAILED MOST PEOPLE’S EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT.

Leave a Reply