The case of Taliban is a good example of the conundrum platforms like Twitter perpetually find themselves in.
Multiple countries by now have recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's de-facto government. Should their representatives be forbidden from communicating on social media? Should the US government really be allowed to decide which government is allowed to use communication platforms, and which isn't?
> Multiple countries by now have recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's de-facto government. Should their representatives be forbidden from communicating on social media?
If they do not comply with the generally-applicable rules of the sites, yes; social media sites should not build in pro-government-of-any-place bias.
Yeah, but right now it looks like they're complying. It's not like they're posting beheading videos. They're trying to project an image (largely hollow, imho) of a stable, reasonable government.
So if Twitter bans them, it'll essentially be because they're an armed group the US doesn't like, and not much more.
6 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 28.1 ms ] threadMultiple countries by now have recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's de-facto government. Should their representatives be forbidden from communicating on social media? Should the US government really be allowed to decide which government is allowed to use communication platforms, and which isn't?
It's not a question with a trivial answer.
If they do not comply with the generally-applicable rules of the sites, yes; social media sites should not build in pro-government-of-any-place bias.
So if Twitter bans them, it'll essentially be because they're an armed group the US doesn't like, and not much more.
Wouldn't be nearly very surprising, though.