I'm going to guess this is more about Germany than it is about China
In Germany, Nazi propaganda is illegal. This leaves Twitter with three options when dealing with a user who posts Nazi propaganda:
1. Leave it up, in violation of German law.
2. Delete the user's tweet, even though it is legal in most countries (and blocking it is a violation of the principle of free speech)
3. Block it only in Germany, and make it clear that it has been blocked.
Personally I think 3 is the least-bad option, though obviously others may disagree.
Yes. At Last.fm, Germany was the first country we had to censor our content in.
If you try and view content which is deemed inappropriate by the German government (fun fact: even the list of inappropriate content is restricted), you get something which looks like this:
With counties bringing in even more restrictions on free speech which contradict each other this will be fun. Take the Armenian genocide for example. Denying it will be a crime in France, but claiming it happened can lead to charges of "insulting Turkishnes" in Turkey (the charges were later dropped against Orhan Pamuk).
Blocking those tweets is not a violation of the principle of free speech. At least not in the legal sense. Private people and companies suppress speech all the time and that's fine. It's when your government does it that it's very wrong.
What are you trying to say? Germany compels companies to suppress Nazi propaganda in Germany. (I'm assuming, the article isn't that specific.) That is the government telling citizens what they cannot say (e.g. censorship).
The difference between censored speech in Germany (or America: we have limits on free speech, too) and someplace like China is German society has agreed to limit certain offensive speech where as Chinese citizens don't really have a say in the matter.
It's a violation in the moral sense, depending of course in your morals. Twitter's image involves the protection if free speech, so it's problematic for them.
Yes, but censorship is a slippery slope to silence and government abuse. Eventually Twitter and/or the People will need to make a stand against tyranny if they feel human rights and free speech are being overly obstructed.
The wiggle room is that maybe, when Twitter, Google and Facebook, and every other company that values free speech (if in fact they actually do) pulls out of their country, the citizens will realize how shitty their laws against free speech actually are, and have them repealed. Twitter may have principles, but they're sacrificing them here in favor of German/Chinese revenue.
I'm sympathetic to your point; people are so confused about this issue. If a reporter says something offensive on TV and gets fired as a result, it's not a violation of "free speech". In the present case, though, it is a violation of free speech—not by Twitter, but by the German government. (Good thing, too, as I hear the Nazis are rallying their forces and are on the brink of a comeback.)
Exactly, Twitter is acting on behalf of Government. That doesn't somehow make it "ok" -- understandable? Yes. But it's not the same thing as a private enterprise deciding they don't want to republish Nazi tweets.
A useful new web service to complement this would be a site to determine which tweets are censored in which countries and publicly log them for convenient searching and analysis.
Even though I don't like it a bit that they're yielding to censorship, they did the best thing you can do when forced to censor: stay transparent about it. Provide a public API.
Same with the subpoenas: They were forced to give away the user's information, couldn't help that, but they did notify those users, and publish the subpoena.
Despite claims, Twitter is certainly not evil and secretive here.
Seriously, the spammers aren't even using new messages (bar the infamous @Horse_ebooks). Just ban people saying that exact message with that exact spam URL.
So does this mean they'll only censor them in a certain country when that country's government asks them to do it, or also when the US Government asks them to censor them in that country?
A country can only ask Twitter to censor the information in that country. For example, if Germany doesn't want the German people see pro-Nazi content, they can ask Twitter to censor it in that country. Twitter will then report it in to http://www.chillingeffects.org/.
Note how twitter did not do anything as a SOPA protest, unlike Google or Wikipedia. They are a (any) government-aligned company, and they probably enjoy unusually close ties with FBI and CIA (their role in the Arab Spring would ensure that for example).
I think many of these companies are looking at the very real possibility that being relegated to being a 'Western Country Company' may not be the best financial strategy long term.
That said...Twitter is too late. I don't think many Chinese young people will switch at this point. They have already missed the boat on micro blogging in China, they should at least keep their ideals...now they will keep their ideals and won't get the Chinese market anyway.
Although when I consider the matter more fully...the world is bigger than China. Some of those other nations may be important markets going forward...and they may have some censorship laws Twitter would have to deal with. Indonesia will probably be the second most important nation in Asia in the future, and I think Twitter hasn't lost yet in places like that. And Indonesia probably has things you can and cannot say.
What they need to do is identify all flagged tweets to everyone, either with a "this tweet was blocked by censors in your country" or with a "this tweet is blocked for users in Iran at the request of censors".
No, but when it comes down to "Censor stuff when asked" or "Don't bother setting up shop at all", any rational person would take option #1.
So let's see, you're Google, and you want to set up your search engine in China.
"Not so fast" says the local big cheeses. "You have to censor search results in compliance with laws X Y and Z. If you do not, your employees will be jailed and you will be shut down."
As a Chinese citizen, which is the best result?
Let's do a very simple payoff matrix.
Outcome A: Google avoids China altogether
Outcome B: Google opens in China and complies with the law
Outcome C: Google opens in China and does not comply with the law
Google Chinese Citizen
A 0 0
B 1 1
C -1 0
Only option B leaves all parties better than they started out.
I see your point, but it's a little simplistic. By opening and complying with the law you are to a certain extent validating or condoning that law. By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent takes pressure off the Chinese government.
>By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent
takes pressure off the Chinese government.
How do you figure that? A search engine company in the united states probably isn't in the best position to be dictating foreign policy. Any "pressure" they could exert (on China, especially) by saying "We're staying away due to your crappy laws" is minimal at best.
Besides, they already left due to (ostensibly) government agents trying to hack into their systems.
It's not really fair to say "any rational person would take option #1," as a rational person could also make the decision that they'd rather not be party to supporting censorship.
Option D: Google opens their Chinese office outside of PRC, and embraces circumvention technology.
This is the Internet, you don't have to open a physical office in every market. Censoring services for the whims of every government just dilutes your brand.
This is a corporation. For one, it's incredibly inefficient to set up infrastructure outside of where you're operating. For two, how hard do you think it would be for the great firewall to just block whatever IP's they operate from?
Google.cn being accessible from tor might be a neat idea in theory, but it's infeasible (and just a little bit silly) from a real world perspective where you have to account for your cash and actions.
> And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)
Pretty sure free speech does not, has not, and never has or will apply to military secrets that one takes an oath to keep when they join the military.
Let's get one thing straight. Manning is a hero in my book.. but there is no question what so ever that he broke the law (and his oath). The debate comes in to what we do with him because of what he did.
Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part.
If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move further up the chain to Wikileaks. The point is still valid.
It isn't Free Speech, is just 'mostly' free unless you impinge on a more powerful interest... oh wait, that isn't free.
Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term, contribute to relax Chinese censorship laws and bolster freedom in that country. Chinese Citizen: 100.
The fact that there is any pressure whatsoever. Of all the countries in the world, China is the most able (from an economic and political standpoint) to tell a western company to take their service and shove it.
That's a very shallow view of how the non-autarkic part of the world (to which China certainly belongs) works, China's recent history and the influence of the "cocacolonization" effect. Stating it exerts no pressure whatsoever is an extraordinary claim.
So they will publish the tweets they censor, eh? Idea:
1. Check the list. Get @username and text of censored tweet.
2. Mirror the tweet.
3. Lookup followers of @username
4. Send followers a tweet with link to censored tweet of the @user.
This will start an arms race. Twitter will censor all tweets which link to websites in (2), and start censoring all tweets from users who do (4). Solution:
2. Make Wordpress plugin which mirrors censored list on people's blog. Encourage wordpress users to install this plugin.
4. Encourage twitter users to authorize you to use their accounts to retweet links to censored tweets.
The fact that law depends on which position on this planet you stay is ridiculous.
I vote that every single law is trashed and new laws are written completely from scratch. Based on universial human rights. Without discriminating anyone without a valid reason (e.g. the person is not aware of risks causing by this or that action)
In Germany, Nazi propaganda is illegal. This leaves Twitter with three options when dealing with a user who posts Nazi propaganda:
1. Leave it up, in violation of German law. 2. Delete the user's tweet, even though it is legal in most countries (and blocking it is a violation of the principle of free speech) 3. Block it only in Germany, and make it clear that it has been blocked.
Personally I think 3 is the least-bad option, though obviously others may disagree.