Xfinity News(AP): Twitter's new censorship plan rouses global furor

I don't twit other than with closed research groups at times, so I am more on the social observer side rather than really invested. But I did think of Visionary and he will be the first I'll be waiting to see weigh in on this matter as to its significance.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120127/US.Twitter.Censorship/

NEW YORK — Twitter, a tool of choice for dissidents and activists around the world, found itself the target of global outrage Friday after unveiling plans to allow country-specific censorship of tweets that might break local laws.

It was a stunning role reversal for a youthful company that prides itself in promoting unfettered expression, 140 characters at a time. Twitter insisted its commitment to free speech remains firm, and sought to explain the nuances of its policy, while critics — in a barrage of tweets — proposed a Twitter boycott and demanded that the censorship initiative be scrapped.

"This is very bad news," tweeted Egyptian activist Mahmoud Salem, who operates under the name Sandmonkey. Later, he wrote, "Is it safe to say that (hash)Twitter is selling us out?"

In China, where activists have embraced Twitter even though it's blocked inside the country, artist and activist Ai Weiwei tweeted in response to the news: "If Twitter censors, I'll stop tweeting."

One often-relayed tweet bore the headline of a Forbes magazine technology blog item: "Twitter Commits Social Suicide"

San Francisco-based Twitter, founded in 2006, depicted the new system as a step forward. Previously, when Twitter erased a tweet, it vanished throughout the world. Under the new policy, a tweet breaking a law in one country can be taken down there and still be seen elsewhere.

Twitter said it will post a censorship notice whenever a tweet is removed and will post the removal requests it receives from governments, companies and individuals at the website chillingeffects.org.

<more at link>

Look like a bunch of folks are all atwitter about this.

Saudi Prince Invests $300 Million in Twitter

"Silly kids, I didn't pay $300 million to make money, I paid $300 million to crush the Arab Spring."

Look like a bunch of folks are all atwitter about this.

A lot of people consider Twitter very responsible for all of the revolutions in the Middle East. Information is powerful, more so than any religion or government suppression. This is a shame.

A lot of people consider Twitter very responsible for all of the revolutions in the Middle East. Information is powerful, more so than any religion or government suppression. This is a shame.

I get that. Please see the following:

hu·mor·ous *(hymr-s) adj.

1. Full of or characterized by humor; funny: a humorous story.

2. Employing or showing humor; witty: a humorous writer.

You know, it's one {of the very, very, many) things I fins ironic about political discussion.

The number of people who get mad at a company that chooses not to fight governments.

To, you know, follow the law(s).

Seems to me that if we've got a problem with Iran censoring their internet (or anything else), then we should be asking our government to do something about it. Not a company.

Look like a bunch of folks are all atwitter about this.

*

Reading the story for a second time to make sure I get this right. Seems like Twitter is saying that if they do censor something per a government's request,(after careful consideration),they're going to say so. Possibly even identify who made the request and why. Back to the story.

Yeah, there's been a lot of anger about this the past day or so on twitter.

A lot of the Arab Spring activists (and international journalists) from around the world have been complaining about it and quite a few made some sort of mini boycott action in protest.

It certainly seems like a bad thing to me. I don't think twitter should be doing the bidding of opressive governments and dictatorships.

I haven't actually taken the time to look over the article or the issue too much yet though.

Ok, so I read the article and I do like the transparency that they are suggesting will take place (if they keep their word on that).

Also it seems like they are saying that they would be doing this anyway, but now they are going to try to be as open about it as possible.

I guess that is a good thing, but the whole idea that they would do it at all is worriesome.

Looking through the article I'm a bit confused as to what they would consider reason to remove something.

It seems that they saying that anytime a tweet is determined to be illegal in a country they will censor it in that country.

That makes me nervous, although it is good that others might still be able see the content if it is legal in their country.

I guess it is better than people not having access to twitter at all in the country.

I defer to vis as my resident Twitter political expert (TK when it comes to football activity)

I defer to vis as my resident Twitter political expert (TK when it comes to football activity)