I can't understand why this news everywhere. IP filtering is so 15 years ago.
It's the principle of the filtering, or censoring, which is the key factor here, not the technical aspect.
Where laws are less than specific, e.g. Germany and banning pro-Nazi material, who decides what is to be withheld? Seems like a potential slippery slope.
Journalists and rabble-rousers have little interest in technology itself.
But they always find "censorship" a sexy subject.
Bypass PIPA and SOPA altogether and go for plain censorship without rules, why not. I'd be upset, if I used twitter, to know someone is arbitrarily hiding my tweets.
Spinning new censorship power as "less censorship" = priceless. Hopefully the censorship is never applied in the country the tweet originates from.
|Starting today, 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. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why. |
With those words earlier today, in a blog posting titled “Tweets still must flow” the management of Twitter went over to the dark side and may well have dug their own grave.
In what can only have been a fit of corporate insanity, Twitter announced that it has the ability to filter tweets to conform to the demands of various countries.
We know these kinds of things are possible, but mainstream always falls behind... and by the time "they" hear about it... it is usually too little too late.
What alternative do they have? Otherwise they will be shut down, or completely blocked, sued, or even extradited and jailed.
Its not Twitter's fault, its the fault of insane laws, and the failure of democratic governments to protect free speech (I have to say one notable exception to this has been a recent US change, assuming it has passed into law, to protect its citizens from British libel law).
Journalists may be having interests in technology and in freedom of expression or opinion. But governments and organisations are the ones who prefer to keep stagnancy and keep banning anything what that stirs movement of and flow of information and knowledge. Internet censorship is becoming common and dilute and they ban even anything whatever they want to. At least they should be a way to read censored content. Censorship is valid but need justification.
|Journalists and rabble-rousers have little interest in technology itself. |
If I am posting something against the government or the organisation or against some eminent personality and they ban it then it hurts the freedom of expression. Still banning is critical as it may be required to ban #*$! and malicious content provoking terrorism or hatred.
What (they should) to ban and what not to ban is the root problem.
[edit: removed line-breaks]
If twitter users start getting too many withheld messages they may decide that they need a new government.
Twitter is banning already in India, I can't post some kind of tweets!
tangor made an excellent remark:
|and by the time "they" hear about it... it is usually too little too late. |
In our days and ages we all know that viral effect could be almost instantaneously spontaneous, as such no one should really feel threatened.
The real danger will be filtering prior posting!
Anshul, Are those tweets rejected, or are they merely not visible to you but visible in other countries?
India is often touted as the world's largest democracy, but that doesn't imply it is a good democracy. [mashable.com ]