On Jan. 26, 2012, Twitter announced its new content policy in an online blog post. Due to its increasing global audience with varying ideas about freedom of expression, Twitter plans to censor tweets deemed controversial by a host country. However, instead of removing the offending post entirely, Twitter will only make its content unavailable for viewing within the host country.
Twitter wrote in its blog that, “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.”
The announcement was met with shock and anger by many, especially in light of Twitter’s revolutionary role in the Arab Spring uprising. The Guardian World asked Twitter users how they felt about the new policy. Many responded with intentions to boycott the website. Tyson B. tweeted, “It’s an affront on a free society & could be a PR disaster for Twitter after it’s much praised role in the #Arabspring.”
While Twitter attributes its policy to a desire to respect different contours of freedom of expression, it seems likely that Twitter is “selling out” in order to tap into larger markets that hold more liberal views regarding freedom of speech.
Thailand is the first government to support Twitter’s new policy publicly. Censorship laws are heavily enforced in Thailand. Jeerawan Boonperm, Thai Minister of Information and Communication Technology, considers Twitter’s decision a “welcome development.”
Censorship in Thailand often works to protect the monarchy insulting or threatening comments about the royal family are punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Under Thailand’s 2007 Computer Crimes Act, increasingly severe sentences are possible. In the country, jail time is a reality for Facebook users who click “like” or “share” on sites deemed offensive to the monarchy. Hearing about Twitter’s new rules, the Thai government stated that it would soon reach out to Twitter to discuss collaboration.
Thailand is not the only country to support Twitter’s decision. Xu Ming, a reporter for China’s state-affiliated Global Times, endorsed the new policy. He wrote in an article: “It is impossible to have boundless freedom, even on the Internet, and even in countries that make freedom their main selling point.”
Is the policy blatant censorship or sensitivity to international cultures? Opinions aside, it is clear that Twitter, like other major websites, is struggling to resolve its desire for free speech with its economic wishes to spread further internationally. Namely, into China.
Though Twitter currently has 300 million users, the Chinese market of 500 million potential users remains a clear target for Twitter. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has expressed his disappointment over the Chinese government’s standing decision to block Twitter. Like many other sites, Twitter is inaccessible in China without the use of a VPN account to get over China’s controversial Golden Shield project, colloquially named “Great Firewall.”
Currently, it is Sina Weibo that occupies the microblogging market in China. While being popular, this Twitter-substitute currently has many users disenchanted, as the Communist government increasingly monitors it. Weibo now requires authentic identification at registration. Forcing users to provide personal information will likely result in fewer users being able to speak their minds.
Time will tell if Twitter’s new policy will force the Chinese market to open up.
Despite promises or transparency and legality, Twitter’s rules are currently being looked upon unfavourably with the recent removal of four unfavourable parody accounts focused on French president Nicolas Sarkozy. These accounts were suspended mere hours after Sarkozy decided to create an official account. Parody accounts are allowed on Twitter insofar as they make clear that the account is not actually the person in question.
Internet sans Frontières, the French organization for online freedom of expression, claims that the accounts did not violate Twitter’s terms of use and that Twitter’s suspension of the accounts is deliberate political censorship.
Drew Bowling for WebProNews also writes that the parody accounts made clear in their biographies they were fake. The rationale behind their removal remains mysterious, though backlash from Twitter users is foreseeable if more accounts are suspended without clear reason.
