Why Does Twitter Give Taliban a Platform While Banning American Dissidents?
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
Excerpt:
"After Facebook and YouTube moved to ban any accounts associated with the Taliban following their takeover of Afghanistan, Twitter faced scrutiny as to why it hadn’t followed suit.
When a Taliban representative was asked for a response on the ban, he chided Facebook for tacitly supporting free speech while silencing those who express the wrong opinions.
“This question should be asked to those people who are claiming promoters of freedom of speech, who do not allow publication of all information. I can ask the Facebook company. This question should be asked to them,” said the Taliban spokesman.
However, Twitter has yet to suspend any major Taliban accounts, having previously banned the sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump, back in January."
"After Facebook and YouTube moved to ban any accounts associated with the Taliban following their takeover of Afghanistan, Twitter faced scrutiny as to why it hadn’t followed suit.
When a Taliban representative was asked for a response on the ban, he chided Facebook for tacitly supporting free speech while silencing those who express the wrong opinions.
“This question should be asked to those people who are claiming promoters of freedom of speech, who do not allow publication of all information. I can ask the Facebook company. This question should be asked to them,” said the Taliban spokesman.
However, Twitter has yet to suspend any major Taliban accounts, having previously banned the sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump, back in January."
Nobody who values his life, his liberty, his civilization, should have anything to do with Twit, assuming he ever did.
If you're still using it, you're part of the problem. You are aiding and abetting the enemy. You have alternatives. (Not the least of which is abandoning any platform that has anything to do with truncating interaction to TV-ad-attention-span character-limits.)
When I first heard people raving about the wonders of Twit a dozen or so years ago - I distinctly remember first hearing about it in the glowing appraisals of Virginia Postrel, who as an incidental aside has since turned traitor to life, to liberty and to civilization - I had to scratch my head at a faddish fixation on... a platform which limited comments to 140 characters (I would consider 140 words to be an irrational restriction, particularly in context of political debate.)
So my instant appraisal was: Yet another dumbing-down of the populace, in this case by the very design of the site itself. Umm... no.
To boil it down:
I can't imagine why anyone with a dedication to reason would ever have had anything to do with Twit in the first place; to continue to have anything to do with it now is unconscionable.