> > Even if Twitter did 'censor' tweets/accounts etc, we can hardly get all > that > upset about it (although it should be in the TOS). > We CAN and SHOULD get upset, if not about the censorship, but on the lack of transparency. We need to at least have indication that a tweet was banned (or banned in some countries - it's important, because I live in one :) ). This has nothing to do with what's "right" or "moral". It's a "consumer" issue: this service is unpredictable. For example - Jillian has offered the theory that the "N-word tweets" were blocked by the recipient (not what happened in this case), but why should this be theory and not fact? We're talking about relationships between people.
When I @mention someone, I shouldn't need to guess whether: a. They've read my tweet, got offended and blocked me b. Never read my tweet because twitter has "protected" them from it Especially if it's a fan-to-celeb tweet (luckily, I'm no teenager). This is not only a feature request. It's a bug report. Twitter is broken until it's fixed. BTW, sometimes the lack of transparency is due to policy and not technology: when they closed down @AnonOpsSweden (twice), twitter (people, not machines) didn't say why. If twitter believes this is acceptable, maybe they don't WANT to invest in features that inform me about their [non] censorship decisions. It's their right (although it would only be fair to add "we might take you down for reasons we can't discuss with you" to the TOS), but let the consumer be very afraid.
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
