Normally I wouldn't submit something like this. But there seems to be dramatic overreach by social media platforms of late, putting free speech in peril.
So now Twitter is trying to set the rules for speech world-wide. No company should believe themselves to be the sole arbiters of what should be and not be allowed in local jurisdictions's speech.
This is overreach. This isn't giving speech to people under dictatorships, this is being the diktator. They, unelected, undeferring, are dictating the rules, regardless of local laws, mores and so on.
If they continue setting the rules for speech world-wide from their world-view-only, I think we can expect to see more Nigerias, Irans and Chinas when it comes to Twitter --and I would not blame them. Arguably, they are interfering with the sovereignty of these places.
Ten years ago people who like this sort of pannational rule setting would have been claiming "Imperialism" but it's okay because they are the imperialists.
The sole arbiter? This man can post on a million different websites. He can go on TV or the radio. He can place an ad in a newspaper. He can hold public meetings. He can stand on the corner handing out pamphlets.
Twitter is not, in any sense of the word, the sole arbiter of acceptable speech. Nor are they even remotely trying to be.
Spain (nor any other country) doesn't have a say on what's allowed on the platform when it comes to its own citizens. That's supranational control. To use a throwback phrase form the old guard, it's "Imperialistic".
What if WeChat, if TikTok, etc., etc., went all out with CCP propaganda and undermined Biden on all things China with regard to their US users? What if they decided they wanted to back a friendly candidate and have anti Biden propaganda? Are we cool with that? Or are they only cool when they carry water for you?
Let's suppose Mark Z decided he wanted to forgo US citizenship and went out and got Russian citizenship and then decided it was okay for FB to carry his new message? Cool? Oh, oh, do I hear calls of "interference"?
> Spain (nor any other country) doesn't have a say on what's allowed on the platform when it comes to its own citizens.
Except, they absolutely do? If Twitter wants to do business in Spain, it has to obey Spanish law. If it wants to succeed in the Spanish market, it has to appeal to Spanish consumers.
Your hypothetical scenarios are all based on a misunderstanding of my position here. It's absolutely the US's prerogative to take action against foreign companies that disseminate agitprop. Likewise, if Spain wants to step in and stop Twitter here, they can (and should!) do so.
That said, I think you're skipping the crucial middle step here where the citizens actually object to what Twitter is doing. Obviously, you think this is "propaganda" and "dictating the rules", but I don't see any indication that most people in Spain feel the same way. Where is the outrage from anyone other than a far-right political party that got ~15% of the votes in a historically low turnout election?
How convenient. Media mostly ignore an event. When there is predictably not much outrage among people that are largely unaware of it, claim this is evidence they think it's OK.
Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the _right_ to have babies.
This is getting flagged, I suspect because of the contents of the tweet.
I think this is a discussion which needs to be had, though.
Not a discussion of anything related to trans biology, which doesn't belong here, but of Twitter meddling in the politics of other nations by enforcing a California Democrat's idea of acceptable speech on other people.
Twitter has accounts like @10DowningStreet and @POTUS, which are de facto government organs. It has become a global commons for politics, and this is a very awkward fit for enforcing rules which are primarily designed to keep frog emojis and rainbow-flag emojis from yelling slurs at each other.
> "I think this is a discussion which needs to be had, though."
How do you foresee this discussion being different than the one about Nigeria and Twitter [1] or Trump and Facebook [2] (both within the past day or so), modulo some details? Coupled with the distraction that you yourself pointed out, I think this is an ongoing discussion (has been for years on HN), and will likely be unchanged with this particular entry.
>discussion of anything related to trans biology, which doesn't belong here
There are plenty of purely biological topics posted that stimulate curiosity or the intellect. It's the users that decide, collectively, what counts as on topic and what doesn't. If an article about trans biology was posted that didn't produce tons of snide sarcasm and identity politics in the comments (admittedly unlikely), I wouldn't flag it.
Scientific fact is no longer fact, but merely a social construct. Even though it is scientifically impossible for a man to get pregnant, that statement might hurt someone’s feelings so it must be banned.
If I'm a racist who states some true crime statistic as part of an argument or implication that is mostly just being made to belittle black people, express hatred for them, or claim that they should be treated differently, then I am using a factual statement as hate speech. You're oversimplifying. A fact being true is only a defense for exactly that fact. People often fall into this fallacy in defense of hateful or low quality rhetoric.
If a man has a functional uterus, he can get pregnant. Some transmen have functional uteruses, therefore they can get pregnant.
There are many people who don't know the difference between a transman and a transwoman. If you say a transwoman can't get pregnant, then you're right. If you say a transman can't get pregnant, then you're factually wrong, there's been quite a few.
23 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 63.3 ms ] threadThis is overreach. This isn't giving speech to people under dictatorships, this is being the diktator. They, unelected, undeferring, are dictating the rules, regardless of local laws, mores and so on.
If they continue setting the rules for speech world-wide from their world-view-only, I think we can expect to see more Nigerias, Irans and Chinas when it comes to Twitter --and I would not blame them. Arguably, they are interfering with the sovereignty of these places. Ten years ago people who like this sort of pannational rule setting would have been claiming "Imperialism" but it's okay because they are the imperialists.
If anything it shows just how reliant these politicians have become on a foreign company for their political ranting/culture waring.
Twitter is not, in any sense of the word, the sole arbiter of acceptable speech. Nor are they even remotely trying to be.
What if WeChat, if TikTok, etc., etc., went all out with CCP propaganda and undermined Biden on all things China with regard to their US users? What if they decided they wanted to back a friendly candidate and have anti Biden propaganda? Are we cool with that? Or are they only cool when they carry water for you?
Let's suppose Mark Z decided he wanted to forgo US citizenship and went out and got Russian citizenship and then decided it was okay for FB to carry his new message? Cool? Oh, oh, do I hear calls of "interference"?
Except, they absolutely do? If Twitter wants to do business in Spain, it has to obey Spanish law. If it wants to succeed in the Spanish market, it has to appeal to Spanish consumers.
Your hypothetical scenarios are all based on a misunderstanding of my position here. It's absolutely the US's prerogative to take action against foreign companies that disseminate agitprop. Likewise, if Spain wants to step in and stop Twitter here, they can (and should!) do so.
That said, I think you're skipping the crucial middle step here where the citizens actually object to what Twitter is doing. Obviously, you think this is "propaganda" and "dictating the rules", but I don't see any indication that most people in Spain feel the same way. Where is the outrage from anyone other than a far-right political party that got ~15% of the votes in a historically low turnout election?
https://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/LORETT...
I think this is a discussion which needs to be had, though.
Not a discussion of anything related to trans biology, which doesn't belong here, but of Twitter meddling in the politics of other nations by enforcing a California Democrat's idea of acceptable speech on other people.
Twitter has accounts like @10DowningStreet and @POTUS, which are de facto government organs. It has become a global commons for politics, and this is a very awkward fit for enforcing rules which are primarily designed to keep frog emojis and rainbow-flag emojis from yelling slurs at each other.
How do you foresee this discussion being different than the one about Nigeria and Twitter [1] or Trump and Facebook [2] (both within the past day or so), modulo some details? Coupled with the distraction that you yourself pointed out, I think this is an ongoing discussion (has been for years on HN), and will likely be unchanged with this particular entry.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27404125
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27395366
There are plenty of purely biological topics posted that stimulate curiosity or the intellect. It's the users that decide, collectively, what counts as on topic and what doesn't. If an article about trans biology was posted that didn't produce tons of snide sarcasm and identity politics in the comments (admittedly unlikely), I wouldn't flag it.
There are many people who don't know the difference between a transman and a transwoman. If you say a transwoman can't get pregnant, then you're right. If you say a transman can't get pregnant, then you're factually wrong, there's been quite a few.