 |
| image taken from the nytimes.com |
Personally,
I understand the concerns people have regarding free speech and censorship –
issues that are integral to the U.S. mindset (even more so now with new media
technologies pushing the boundaries of what we consider “acceptable” free
speech) – however I feel that people are very quick to judge companies for
policies that they have very few options with. In all seriousness, what other
choices do groups like Twitter have if they want to remain competitive on an international
level? Sure, it would be wonderful from a U.S. perspective if Twitter stood up
to those countries that required some degree of censorship, but that is simply
unrealistic for a business that has to compete with every other social media
website. Yes it has been used for incredible purposes but the site itself is
not a humanitarian organization, nor is it above international law. It is,
overall, a very simplistic concept that provides a limited, yet effective
manner of communicating across great distances. Would it not be more unjust of
Twitter to cut off hundreds of thousands of users simply because the
governments of the countries in which they live do not share the same values of
free speech as the United States?
The
more social media becomes a staple of our communicative diets, the more we are forced to
confront the customs and even the laws of countries whose values differ
tremendously from our own. There have been obstacles but overall there are so
many ways in which our eyes have been opened and our biases broken down because
of these close encounters with people who live outside the customs considered
essential in American society (or in any other country for that matter). As
corporations expand across oceans and attempt to provide services to as many
people as possible, we will continue to be confronted with such issues and it
is integral to the success of those companies that they understand these differences,
even if it is considered unsavory by the American public.
I think this is a really interesting topic. I'm am concerned with how things like PIPA and SOPA could affect the uses of social media in America, but I hadn't thought about the international effects, or international censorship. I'm not for censorship, but I think Twitter made a decent compromise. Using your example of the king of Thailand, I wonder does that apply to tweets written in other countries? Is it illegal to write something negative about the king? Read something negative? Both maybe? I didn't see a direct link to the article in your post, but I definitely would have read it if you had included it.
ReplyDeleteSorry about that - the article is actually hyperlinked to the photo, I should have included the link underneath it as well. It's very interesting, and to answer your other question, as far as I could tell from the article the laws only apply for specific countries that request it. So if someone tweeted a negative comment about the Thai King in Thailand, it would be removed only for viewers in Thailand - we would still be able to see it. After all, the posts aren't simply removed with not comment, Twitter will post a notification saying that the tweet was removed, so it will be obvious even to those in the country that it was most likely their specific government's decision to remove the comment.
ReplyDeleteKatharine, I must say this is an interesting post. I was really unaware about the sensitivity of international censorship in different countries. However, I personally feel that Twitter is just a service provider, it's up to the individual who posts a comment and by resisting some one to post something/hiding a post will not help. The world is really a small place now and is closely networked, if something is up on twitter and they manage to hide it, someone might share it on G+ or FB. With new apps and networks I think it's not really possible control people from interacting with each other.
ReplyDelete