Post with 5 notes
Truncating Twitter
When the Spanish were creating their empire in the New World, while the initial actions of the conquistadors was that of outright military conquest, the consolidation of political control was so legalistic as to be disturbing — at least to the modern mind. A formal debate was held at Valladolid among the most advanced theologians of the age as to whether the natives of the Americas had souls and whether they could be enslaved or coerced into conversion. A papal bull Sublimus Dei of 1537 was issued to confirm that the natives were rational beings. The New Laws of 1542 were issued to address the conditions of the encomienda system.
This is how mature civilizations go about their business: through the elaborate processes of procedural justice. On the one hand, it is admirable that such mechanisms exist and that there is some method to pursue the redress of grievances. On the other hand, there is something horrific about debating whether or not a population is be treated with kindness or cruelty, rather than prima facie recognizing their humanity and not demanding that this humanity be confirmed by an arcane legal process.
In our own day, in most places, membership in the species is enough to recognize one’s humanity. But having one’s humanity and citizenship recognized is one thing; having the same freedom as another is another thing. Today it is whether or not individuals are entitled to certain freedoms and protections is what occupies our legalistic debates, and again we see the same dialectic: admirable procedures are in place to see that justice is served, but it is disturbing that we cannot simply have freedom without the procedures.
Twitter’s recent announcement that it has rolled out the technology to selectively censor tweets in particular geographical regions (read: the geographically defined nation-state) has about it the odd feel of overly-conscientious legalism and proceduralism. The statement of the company — mentioning, “countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression” — is positively Orwellian. What, exactly, are the “contours of freedom of expression”? If anyone uses an elliptic expression like this, the only reason they are using it is in order to avoid saying something straight out, and much more simply.
I happened across a couple of very different perspectives on Twitter’s announcement of its ability to selectively censor tweets in particular geographical regions, in Foreign Policy there was Birdbrained: Why Twitter will regret its misguided flirtation with censorship by Uri Friedman and in the Financial Times there was Twitter bows to pressure over censorship by Richard Waters in San Francisco. The Financial Times characterized Twitter’s move as “pragmatic” while the Foreign Policy piece thought the decision was “misguided.” Neither piece had anything to say about the disconcerting legalism with which Twitter cloaked its decision to enable censorship.
What do I mean by legalism? The Financial Times piece said this:
Twitter promised to publish all censorship requests, unless it is subject to a gag order, on Chillingeffects.org, a website set up to bring greater transparency to international censorship.
And the Foreign Policy piece said this:
Twitter has promised to disclose any information it withholds through a system that looks a lot like Google’s Transparency Report, which tracks requests by government agencies and courts around the world for Google to hand over user data or remove content from its services. Twitter pledges to alert users when their tweets or accounts have been removed, clearly mark withheld content, and post notices on the website Chilling Effects. The company will only remove content in reaction to “valid legal process — we don’t do anything proactively,” Bremer explained.
Is there anyone who feels reassured by the fact that they will will be notified when they are censored, and a full record will be made of it, creating the electronic equivalent of a paper trail?
Isn’t this a bit like a qualified physician certifying that a condemned man is sufficiently healthy to go to the gallows? Who is more to be pitied, the physician willing to engage in such a process, or the condemned man who is “served” by such a physician?
-
geopolicraticus posted this
