Twitter Admits On Censoring Criticism of Your Indian Government

On Saturday, Twitter admitted that it is actively working together with the Indian government to pay criticism of its handling of this pandemic as the number of cases and deaths has been skyrocket. There are conflicting reports that the Indian government has misrepresented the number of deaths and the real rate of instances may be up to 30 times greater than reported.  The state has a shortage of beds, oxygen, and other essentials because of a failure to adequately prepare for a new surge. With the support of many Democratic leaders at the United States, Twitter now frequently censors viewpoints in the United States and India had no difficulty in devoting it to crackdown on people raising the alarm within the government handling of this crisis.
Buried in an Associated Press story on the raging outbreak and failures of this Indian government are those two lines:

“On Saturday, Twitter complied with the government’s petition and prevented individuals in India from seeing more than 50 tweets that seemed to criticize the government’s handling of this outbreak. The targeted articles comprise tweets from resistance ministers critical of Modi, journalists and normal Indians.”

The article quotes Twitter as saying that it had the ability to”withhold access to this material in India only” if the company determined the material to be”prohibited in a specific jurisdiction.” Therefore the criticism of the government within this circumstance is prohibited therefore Twitter has agreed to become an arm of the government in censoring data.
Remember that that some of this information could be authentic and really protect lives. It is not”fake news” but efforts by journalists and other people to disclose failures by the government which may cost thousands and thousands of lives. Twitter’s policy says:

Content that’s demonstrably false or misleading and may result in considerable risk of harm (such as increased vulnerability to this virus, or adverse impacts on public health programs ) may not be shared on Twitter. Including sharing content which could mislead individuals about the nature of this COVID-19 virus; the efficacy and/or security of preventative measures, treatments, or other steps to mitigate or treat the disease; official regulations, restrictions, or exemptions pertaining to health advisories; or even the incidence of this virus or risk of infection or death associated with COVID-19. In addition, we may label Tweets which share misleading information regarding COVID-19 to decrease their spread and provide extra context.

Here we’re saying that Twitter is behaving in coordination with the Indian government to pay criticism of its reply — criticism which may expose”significant dangers of harm” from government neglect. Additionally, Twitter will not seem to be merely flagging the tweets but preventing them in the behest of the government such as an out-sourced censor agency.
This is the surface of the newest censors.  The future in language control is not in the classic state mdia model however, the alliance of nations with corporate giants like Twitter. Twitter now actively participates in exactly what Democratic leaders approvingly predict”robust content modification” to restrain viewpoints and political dissent.
When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey arrived before the Senate to apologize for obstructing the Hunter Biden story prior to the election for a error, senators pushed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.
In that hearing, associates like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pushed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their programs:”Which are the two of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your programs after he quits being president, would be nevertheless be deemed newsworthy and could he be able to use your platforms spread misinformation?”
Rather than addressing the risks of such countless news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pushed Dorsey to expand the classes of censored stuff to stop individuals from sharing any views that he believes”climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal appeared to take precisely the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal explained that he was”concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, which you are failing to take action against harmful disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an Response to This query:
“Will you devote to the identical sort of strong content modification playbook in this coming election, such as fact checking, tagging, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other measures, even for politicians at the runoff elections beforehand?”
“Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, such as, for instance, a type of software update. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our agents are likely to crackdown on free speech, they ought to confess to being advocates for censorship.
What is fascinating is the way that social media companies have privatized censorship. These companies now carry out directives to censor material deemed illegal or imitation or deceptive by people in power.  The business also shows no compulsion to protect free speech. When India calls for censorship, it only shrugs and state that the dissenting views are now prohibited.

We have have been discussing how editors, writers, commentators, and academics have adopted climbing calls for censorship and language controls, such as President-elect Joe Biden and his main advisers.  Including professors rejecting the concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.  Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker author Steve Coll has wondered the way the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being”weaponized” to shield disinformation.
Liberals now adopt censorship and even declared that”China was appropriate” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have dropped back to the false story that the First Amendment does not regulate private companies so this is not an assault on free speech. Free speech is an individual right that’s not entirely based or solely characterized by the First Amendment.  Censorship by Web companies is a”Little Brother” hazard long shared with free speech supporters. 
That is why I recently clarified myself as an Online Originalist. Twitter is currently unabashedly and unapologetically a corporate censor. The inquiry is whether the people will remain silent or, as some, really adopt the new Orwellian order of”robust content modification.”
Like this:Like Loading…