The social media website Twitter announced in a recent blog post entitled “The Tweets Must Still Flow” its plan to enact a new censorship initiative. “Starting today,” Twitter announced, “we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country – while keeping it available in the rest of the world.” Twitter explained that the site will “withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.” (Twitter’s message is available at blog.twitter.com.)
The message was met with widespread protest, with users taking to their Twitter accounts to accuse Twitter of “selling out” and to propose a Twitter boycott for today, January 28, using hashtags like #TwitterBlackout and #TwitterCensored. Angry Twitter users have framed the move as an attack on free speech and the freedom of expression.
Others, however, have praised Twitter for its full disclosure on the issue and for being upfront about its legally-mandated censorship policy. Spokespersons for Twitter insist that the move has been largely misinterpreted. They argue that the negative effects of this initiative are being exaggerated, and that in fact the move is pro-freedom of expression as it will remove contested tweets in countries where they might be illegal while still allowing them to remain visible throughout the rest of the Twitter world. (Under its previous policy, when Twitter deleted a particular tweet, the deletion was global.) Twitter representatives maintain that Twitter is actually increasing its transparency because it will inform users when particular tweets have been deleted due to requests from governments or other entities. Twitter plans to replace the contested Tweet with a “Tweet withheld” message, and to post information about country-specific deletion requests it receives on the website Chilling Effects, an anti-censorship website. This arguably represents a less “secret” form of censorship than a system where a message is deleted without acknowledgement. Twitter argues that such a policy is necessary because laws vary between countries, and that it plans to impose censorship narrowly.
Opponents, however, argue that Twitter is more than a social resource; it has in fact been an important tool in not only social but also political movements worldwide. (for instance Egypt) Twitter was, for example, pivotal in orchestrating Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt. Countries lacking a democratic system, where such an avenue for freedom of expression is arguably needed most, will no longer be able to depend on Twitter. According to the Associated Press, a letter from Reporters Without Borders, an entity which advocates for freedom of press, argued that “Twitter is depriving cyberdissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization,” and insisted that the new censorship policy be abandoned.
The move raises many questions. For one, is it legitimate for the definition of freedom of expression to vary from one country to another? How responsive will Twitter be to requests for removal of governments, companies, or other outside parties? (That is, how will Twitter go about determining what is or is not “ a valid and applicable legal request”?) Will removals, as Twitter promises, truly be imposed as narrowly as possible? Will tech-savvy Twitter users find a way around the country-specific censorship? Is this move, as many have suggested, ultimately aimed at gaining access to countries where Twitter has been blocked (for instance, China)? Finally has, as Forbes magazine put it, Twitter “commit[ted] social suicide”?
