Twitter Ignites Censorship Debate After Removal Of Parody Putin Account (thenextweb.com) 147
Twitter has suspended at least five popular anti-Kremlin Twitter accounts on its microblogging social network. The move has angered fans of the accounts and reignited the speculation on censorship on the platform. One such account parodied Russia President Vladimir Putin. The Next Web reports that some of the accounts have been brought back to function amid criticism from their respective fans. Parody accounts have resided in the gray area ever since the early days of Twitter. The social network's official ToS permits users to run a parody account of a celebrity provided they explicitly mention on their profile that it's a fake account. From the report: After their removal, social media users took two Twitter to voice their displeasure with the hashtag #NoGulagForDarthPutinKGB -- a reference to the repressive Soviet state -- and it's seemingly worked, as both accounts are back today. Of course, for how long, and why they were removed in the first place are questions that remain unanswered.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you understand that there is no right to be heard? Nobody owes you a platform.
Re: It's a private business. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a different issue entirely.
Twitter isn't doing anything involuntarily. Facebook, etc are willingly doing what they're doing.
My point was simply that freedom of speech does not mean I can insist that you publish my opinion. You can't call up the New York Times o
Re: (Score:2)
ou can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page.
I am willing to bet you absolutely could call them up and demand whatever you like. They don't have to do what you ask, but no one stops you from calling them and requesting whatever thing you like.
http://www.nytimes.com/content... [nytimes.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/adver... [breitbart.com]
I found contact forms available on both pages, though you might get interesting reactions from the advertise with us link at Breitbart.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not what some of the posters above were suggesting. They seemed to believe that the media outlet must accede to such demands. Indeed, it sounds like they're suggesting that even requiring a phone call or filling out an online form amounts to prior restraint and sensor sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
HAHAHA, Who's delusional? Let's take a vote and see who Slashdot thinks is delusional. Every non-AC that says that your arguments are right counts as a point, every AC that agrees with you is a point in my favor.
Re: (Score:2)
That is 6-0, looks like you are losing already.
Re: (Score:2)
7-0 keep it up, you are making me win one post at a time!
Re: (Score:2)
8-0, you are losing fast. Every time you agree with yourself is a point for me, as if you really were right, you wouldn't need to agree with yourself, everyone would be logging in to profess how awesome your solution is.
Keep it up, I think I should shut it down at 10, as you are embarrassing yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
9-0, keep it up, you are about to lose the argument completely!
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, I win. It looks like you lose the argument by an actual measurable amount.
Thank you for finally admitting that you are wrong, and I am right.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 3.
You really suck at this game don't you?
You just don't get it, no one thinks you are winning an argument, only you delusionally posting as some imaginary third party. You have never made an understandable argument that hasn't been completely trashed, but you will keep posting your garbage and claiming you won!
I will win again, can you even score a point this time?
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
OK, from now on, I'll send you my comments to post. And I'm going to give you a t-shirt with my message on it and you have to wear it.
Dumb fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps.
But, as a fictional character out it: "cutting out a man's toung doesn't prove him a liar, it juts proves you fear what he has to say".
In many cases, making as public a speech as possible and getting silences by the owners of the venue is the best way to make your point. Seen also "Streisand Effect".
A Libertarian position (It's a private business) (Score:1)
Wow, PopeRatzo, that was almost Libertarian of you, congratulations!
How about a job? Does anyone owe him a job, or is it Ok for employers to let go an employee for any reason — or with no reason at all?
Or, maybe, a wedding cake? Does anyone owe anybody a cake, or is Ok — in your opinion, not asking about laws here — for a baker to reject somebody's business [pjmedia.com]?
What do you say to these yahoos [slashdot.org], who claim, a business only exists because "we tolerate it"?
Re: (Score:2)
You have got to learn the difference between big-L Libertarian and small-L libertarian, mi. Anyone can be the latter, but it takes a special kind of goofball to be the former.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is, you're a different kind of special goofball?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a lot of people are at my house doesn't mean I have to let you in just because you want to talk to them.
Is this really hard for you to understand? You have a right your speech, but you don't have a right to come on my property to deliver your speech. And whether or not you like the idea of privat
Most publishing is privately owned (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck do people rely on centralised private speech platforms to make political speech?
Because speech that nobody hears is pretty much useless and twitter and facebook are where the readers are these days. Platforms for widely disseminated speech have been private for centuries. Newspapers, TV, radio, etc are all centralized and privately owned in most cases and it's generally worked just fine as long as there was more than one publisher. In fact you don't actually want your publishers to be owned by the government if you actually care about free speech.
Re:Most publishing is privately owned (Score:4, Insightful)
You're confusing your own country with the rest of the world. Many major TV broadcasters in the european continent are state-owned: BBC in the UK, RAI in Italy, France 2 in France, etc...
Surely they are often biased, especially in favor of the current government. However, that's not worse than a newspaper or a private TV channel whose owner is a bank or a major industrial group, which will obviously report in a way that serves the owner's interests (labor unions are bad, trade deals are good, globalization is great, privatizations are awesome, welfare s*cks, etc...).
Re:Most publishing is privately owned (Score:4, Insightful)
Publicly owned or not, I'm pretty sure the BBC doesn't just let any wanker on the air to spew whatever they feel like. I suspect they're not going to let people air political views that are too far outside of the "mainstream," unless they're treated as the token nutball on some panel where they're shouted down. Or does Britain First get its own TV show on your "public" network?
Re:Most publishing is privately owned (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I mean Britain, and European countries in general, have different views on free speech than the US does. For example, in 2007 there was the European Union Framework Decision for Combating Racism and Xenophobia, which makes the following punishable in all EU Member States:
Publicly inciting to violence or hatred , even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
The same law also prohibits denying or trivializing genocides, crimes against humanity, and war crimes; it specifically mentions crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg (i.e. Holocaust denial).
Now, denying the Holocaust is stupid, it likely stems from racism, and I would choose not to associate myself with anyone who did. But I definitely prefer the US interpretation and implementation of free speech. It's not the Government's job to be the arbiter of truth, and allowing them to control speech in just about any way is one of the most serious threats to liberty that there is.
Re: (Score:2)
obey without question.
It's doubleplus good when you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm glad that the European Commission "voiced its stance", good that they got that privilege before taking it away from everyone else.
I can't believe you actually said "obey without question". Holy fucking shit. But that's OK, because I support your right to freedom of expression! Even incredibly stupid expression.
Re: (Score:3)
A while back BBC News interviewed the leader of the Paedophile Party or whatever they are called in Belgium. The guy was standing on a platform that relationships between children and adults were acceptable, a position pretty far from the mainstream.
Back in the day I seem to recall they interviewed David Ike, a guy who thinks the world is run by lizards. Non-mainstream views seem to get as much attention as they deserve on the BBC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so old I remember when there was real history on The History Channel and real learning on The Learning Channel.
Re: (Score:1)
Conflicts of interest (Score:3)
You're confusing your own country with the rest of the world. Many major TV broadcasters in the european continent are state-owned: BBC in the UK, RAI in Italy, France 2 in France, etc...
All of those exist along side a huge amount of privately owned media. State owned media is fine as long as it doesn't have enough of the market or sufficient influence to undercut media independence. See Russia and China if you need an example of too much media being State owned/controlled. I don't think media independence in the UK or France is a serious concern.
Surely they are often biased, especially in favor of the current government.
Not necessarily though it's a reasonable concern. I would argue the BBC is remarkably independent in most important ways. I could say the same
Re:Most publishing is privately owned (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why can we parody and ridicule Trump but not Putin?
The difference (Score:3)
So, why can we parody and ridicule Trump but not Putin?
Short version? Putin will literally execute or imprison Twitter executives in Russia if they offend him. Trump couldn't really do that even here in the US even if we actually were dumb enough to elect him unless someone was stupid enough to directly threaten him. I don't think people here in the US really appreciate just how gangster Putin and other leaders in Russia really are. They have people killed or put in jail routinely. Russia isn't really a democracy even if they've adopted the trappings of on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or he could ask the FBI to do it if he wants them burned alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean like Joseph Nacchio [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Trump is likely to take Twitter to court and lose, Putin is likely to send Twitter execs some totally not polonium flavoured tea.
Re: (Score:2)
Because speech that nobody hears is pretty much useless and twitter and facebook are where the readers are these days
Social media is where the narcissists and hate mobs are. That's different. The realization that that's not a very nice place, and taking your eyeballs elsewhere makes you happier, has been spreading for years.
Over here in the dextrosphere, conservatives have largely dropped Twitter, and are weaning themselves off Facebook. But it's not just a conservative thing, it's a mental health thing.
Free speech not same as speech without limits (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no downside to everyone saying what they want when they want, true or false.
Complete and demonstrable bullshit. People can be injured by words. Physically, economically, emotionally and and sometimes permanently. There is a reason shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal. Inciting a riot can get people killed. Fraudulent speech can hurt people economically. Slander and libel can ruin someone's life. Etc. Free speech doesn't remain free for long if the powerful or malicious can injure others without consequences by what they say. It's no different than your right to swing your fist ends at my chin. Free speech is not the same thing as speech without limits and never has been.
Which is the difference between censorship (prior) (Score:2)
You're right, of course. One solution that offers some protection both ways is to avoid CENSORSHIP (prior restraint) and instead impose penalties AFTERWARDS for libelous or otherwise unlawful utterances. That way the people as a whole hear what is said and judge whether or not the government is being reasonable and just.
This is why it bugs me so much when people call any penalties for unlawful speech "censorship". It may or may not be bad, but it's not censorship if everyone can hear what you have to say
Threats can result in censorship (Score:2)
This is why it bugs me so much when people call any penalties for unlawful speech "censorship".
Just because someone is able to speak doesn't mean they cannot be censored. To use an extreme example, if I credibly threaten to put you and your family in prison if you talk about me, you are probably not going to talk about me even if you are capable of doing so.. A threat of unreasonable punishment is a perfectly effective way to effect prior restraint even if technically there is nothing physically preventing me from speaking. It absolutely is a form of censorship.
By that logic, flu is beheading (Score:2)
SOME people, in some cases, might not speak if doing so could expose them criminal liabilty. On the other hand, history is full of courageous people who spoke up in the face of death threats. "We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang seperately" wasn't a joke. If you'd like a more recent example, espionage carries the death penalty, yet Edward Snowden exists.
So we can say that criminal liabilty may sometimes have an effect similar to what censorship does directly.
Similarly, some people die from
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if shouting fire in a crowded theatre were illegal, you might have a point.
Alas, it's not illegal. It's not even illegal to FALSELY shout fire in a crowded theatre, though I expect that if someone DID falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre, and someone died as a result, and charges were brought against the shouter, then the courts MIGHT decide that such an act was not deserving of First Amendment protection, which would open the way for
Re: (Score:1)
...before you prove the commies right that the freedom of the press is owned by the owners of the presses.
What's wrong with "proving the commies right", and what's wrong with the statement itself? It doesn't even need to be "proved", because it is blatantly obvious. In a capitalistic system, workers serve the interests of the shareholders they work for, and journalists are just workers, excluding the few cases where they are majority shareholders themselves. It's very hard to trust the media nowadays. For every news story, I always ask myself: is anybody getting any advantage from this going public? "Cui prod
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a capitalistic system
Thats cute, you still think 'the system' matters.
Let me give you a hint:
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Slavery, whatever you want, doesn't matter, its ALL A HUMAN SYSTEM. Governed by human emotions and human greed.
ALL OF THOSE SYSTEMS RESULT IN THE PEOPLE IN POWER CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE NOT IN POWER AND DRAWING RESOURCES AWAY FROM THEM.
ALL OF THEM ARE CORRUPT because THE PEOPLE RUNNING THEM ARE CORRUPT, BE NATURE.
The people who aren't corrupt and would do it properly ... want absolutely nothing to do wi
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who can't handle the truth. Death is inevitable. The best we can do is try to avoid it and have fun in the mean time. Everything else can play into that (politics, economics, social issues), but when you're dead it stops mattering to you.
Thus the solution (to all your Earthly worries) really is death. Have fun for now though.
Re: (Score:2)
You had me until "it is human nature". No, the human nature is not flawed; the system is. Which system? All of them , because fundamentally all systems are based on the same fundament - ownership of all resources, locking them away and giving them only in exchange of "work" or "services".
Time after time we have seen that human nature is highly adaptable and the collective mind [the zeitgeist] is truly a function of the system. We have created a system which is a race to the bottom and then we are surprised
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so what you're saying is, if it wasn't for human nature we could all share and all be happy? Where have I heard that before. We'll just change human nature so that communism works?
Re: (Score:1)
Stretch your mind a little...
No, the human nature is not flawed; the system is.
Leave human nature alone, there is nothing wrong with it!
That doesn't sound like Evtim's suggesting that we need to change human nature, as you put it. So let's go back to the line you're probably thinking of:
Time after time we have seen that human nature is highly adaptable
If we try to analyze this line in the context of the other two, the only meaning that we can sensibly derive is that capacity for change is part of human nature itself — it is only our sclerotic ideological system that, like all other systems, denies individual agency for change. Look at people who don't benefit from our sy
Re: (Score:2)
How do you convince people to let you rape them every day? You start by saying that no one is perfect, and that all are corrupt, therefore, just sit there and take the rape.
What total BULL
Anyone that tries to claim that 'all are bad so stop caring', is in fact the CAUSE of the corruption.
Simply because there is no perfection does not mean you shouldn't strive for it. The existence of corruption does not mean you shouldn't look for the LEAST corruption.
Anyone that thinks it doesn't matter is either a total
Re: (Score:2)
Thats cute, you still think 'the system' matters.
The system does matter. That's why capitalism has succeeded where communism failed. Is there corruption in all systems? Sure. But the average person is much better off under free markets because it takes into account human greed. Invisible hand, Adam Smith, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
...crap, as it was widely proven by the recent global financial crisis.
Bad things happen in any system. But overall, communism was a dismal failure compared to capitalism and free markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Excluding tiny petro-states like Qatar and fiscal havens like Luxembourg, the richest country in the world by per-capita GDP is Norway
"On a per-capita basis, Norway is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You think that helps?
Also:
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state and social democracy country featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors."
Seems like they didn't abandon capitalism and free markets completely, now did they?
And:
"The egalitarian values of Norwe
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does, but not that much. The energy sector's contribution to Norway's GDP is 20%. What about the remaining 80%?
It also accounts for 50% of their exports. Those numbers are quite dominating. And since government spending is part of GDP, it would seem like the energy income gets double-counted if they use cash from energy to supply government benefits. I'd have to see how this number is calculated.
If you call "capitalist" a system where the government controls the 5 largest companies, manages 50% of the GDP in public expenditure, and puts heavy tariffs on agricultural imports (free market?!), then I'm very capitalist too! I posted hard statistics to prove my point, not adjectives.
They described it as "mixed", because you can flip the stat around and say they don't control 50% of the GDP, and outside of key sectors like energy they let capitalism and the free market work, with the exception of tariffs
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you have no clue about what the GDP actually is, and how it is calculated. Nothing is "double counted", and State-owned enterprises are never accounted as part of the government "budget", they have their own assets and debts, their own revenues and expenditures, they release their own quarterly reports, and their money doesn't go to welfare, except the taxes they obviously pay, just like any other company.
So 20% of GDP is the energy sector, and a big chunk of that money gets collected as taxes, and then those taxes are used to fund welfare services, which are also counted as GDP. Where am I wrong?
Anyways, flip whatever you want, if that's what you call "capitalism and free markets" (with the "exception of tariffs", lol), then I'm ok with that, but neoliberal economists really are not.
Mixed is mixed. If capitalism and free markets were so horrible, then why doesn't Norway abandon them completely?
For what bizarre reason would they ever want to join a nation with lower life expectancy, skyrocketing obesity, a shrinking middle class, 15 million people without healthcare, and kim katrashian on tv?
Obesity is a modern Western diet problem that is growing around the world, including countries like France [wikipedia.org], but ultimately it's a personal choice, as is what you watch on TV. Not sure how any of that coun
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong because the items that compose the yearly GDP are only accounted for ONCE, either as the revenues generated by the economic system, or according to how these revenues are spent or invested by the government, companies and consumers, so by definition nothing is double-counted, it's two ways to analyze the same thing. This confirms what I was saying before: you have no clue of what the GDP actually is and how it is calculated, hence you shouldn't have even started arguing about it .
I saw that the definition [investopedia.com] of GDP included government spending, so I made a guess as to how it might be double counted. I didn't pretend to be an expert on the subject.
You, on the other hand, despite being arrogant and calling me clueless, merely assert nothing is double counted, but offer no evidence to the contrary. Since exports count towards GDP, and result in tax revenue for the government, and government spending counts towards GDP, how could it be the case that the 20% GDP from energy doesn't result i
Re: (Score:1)
ALL OF THEM ARE CORRUPT because THE PEOPLE RUNNING THEM ARE CORRUPT, BY NATURE.
Romans 5:12 [biblegateway.com], amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck do people rely on centralised private speech platforms to make political speech?
What do you suggest as an alternative? Are their any decentralized public speech platforms (aside from ranting on a street corner)?
Re: (Score:1)
Another questions is why private speech platforms are allowed to transmit information over public infrastructure without agreeing to extend Constitutional rights to their users.
We freely choose to not be hurt. (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't censorship. Censorship is being forced to remove things.
This is just, ummm, pre-removal before things gets that far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't censorship. Censorship is being forced to remove things.
This is just, ummm, pre-removal before things gets that far.
If you're suffering the chilling effects of not sharing media because you think you might get in trouble, that's a second-order effect of censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
. . . I guess you and many others couldn't detect his rampant sarcasm?
Re: (Score:2)
. . . I guess you and many others couldn't detect his rampant sarcasm?
My comment was for other people, who might not get the joke. If I had been offended, rest assured that you would now know.
Re:We freely choose to not be hurt. (Score:5, Insightful)
"When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long."
-- Tucker Carlson
Re:We freely choose to not be hurt. (Score:4, Insightful)
"When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long."
Emphasis mine. Criticism is free speech. Interesting how so-called free speech supportes are against it when it comes to people using free speech in a way they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the kind of criticism he's talking about isn't what I'd broadly call constructive engagement.
"Blacks engage in a lot of crime."
Constructive engagement criticism is "Blacks are subject to unfair treatment by the police."
What Carlson likely meant was responses that were like: "You're a horrible racist espousing white privilege and you should be prosecuted for hate speech."
The former responds to the statement they disagree with, but does it in a non-hyperbolic and respectful way. The latter vomits hy
Re: (Score:3)
If you're suffering the chilling effects of not sharing media because you think you might get in trouble, that's a second-order effect of censorship.
...or you're just being considerate. Not every stray thought that flitters across your brain needs to be shared. For example, if you have opinions on a political candidate's spouse's looks, fantasies about something happening to a female who you happen to disagree with, or any opinion at all on a Kardashian, the world is much better off if you don't share. Really. We're fine.
For reference, see Elon's Law [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
...or you're just being considerate.
Trouble != Offend someone. At least, that's the idea...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, calm down everyone, it looks like it was just a mistake. The account is back up again now. No need to leap to conclusions before finding out exactly what happened.
The account itself claims that the Russian Foreign Ministry put in a complaint. We need to wait for Twitter to explain what happened now.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably. Because the much more biting satire twitter account (https://twitter.com/kermlinrussia) is still up and running.
Re: Duh (Score:3)
Take two Twitter and call me in the morning. Classic doctor's advice.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everyone know they are satire.
Not everyone, at least Euronews, with screenshot [facebook.com]:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/... [themoscowtimes.com]
Euronews had mistakenly used an image from a fake Twitter account for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in one of its TV reports
Good parody (Score:5, Funny)
I first saw this news on the BBC yesterday. The account is really funny, and the tweet they quote at the start of the article is nicely representative; I'll reproduce it here for those who haven't RTFA yet:
Re: (Score:2)
I first saw this news on the BBC yesterday. The account is really funny, and the tweet they quote at the start of the article is nicely representative; I'll reproduce it here for those who haven't RTFA yet:
There should be a parody Instagram account of Putin's shirt. Parody all his shirtless photos: a shirt on top of a horse, a shirt laying on a gym bench, a shirt with a fishing pole next to it, or on a mountain top. Things like that.
Re:Good parody (Score:4, Informative)
You mean funny as in retelling an old joke that was originally about Germans and Poland/France? http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/i... [worldoftanks.eu]
Enough Twitter (Score:2)
Can we just route Twitter off please? Nothing of value comes from there. Its bad enough we have to hear the news reading celebrity tweets or see inane comments scrawled across television shows. I find it difficult to even follow discussions when it only looks like message fragments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think nothing of value comes from Twitter, then follow some people - I see plenty of value in Twitter, but then I follow people I know create value and I un-follow people who stop creating value. Its a very useful tool - if you don't agree, then feel free to stop using Twitter, but don't presume to think that your opinion means we should all consider Twitter useless.
Re: (Score:2)
How rude (Score:2)
"...social media users took two Twitter..."
Did they give at least one back?
Is there more than ONE twitter? (Score:2)
If there's two, there's probably others as well...
Only Twitter users would not know the difference between "two" and "to"... what is this world coming to?
Re: (Score:1)
Why not decentralized? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The same reason that the first widely-used free messaging platform was Whatsapp, which at first was a simple XMPP knockoff that charged money, when technically superior and free systems existed for years: Popularity and low (not necessarily zero) cost are the only important factors in the success of a communication platform. If a communication platform isn't popular enough that you can communicate with most people then few will use it.
Likewise, there are in fact decentralized social networks, used by a hand
Re: (Score:2)
I find myself curious... (Score:2)
Specifically, as to who, exactly, wrote:
There seems to be an extra 'w' in there, so either the submitter, the editor, or the guy at wherever the quote was taken from is, at best, semi-literate. I'm hoping it's the last, but the number of semi-literates all over makes it a tough call.
making Poe's Law his bitch (Score:5, Funny)
Currently, according to the terms of service, parody accounts are acceptable as long as it’s clear that the account is intended to parody a person rather than attempt to trick Twitter users into believing it’s actually them.
Putin's a genius. There's nothing DarthPutinKGB could say that's so outlandishly evil that the real Putin wouldn't say it, or actually do it. So there's no way to satisfy the Twitter terms of service, so the account has to be removed.
Re: (Score:2)