Re:Twitter Drops the Big One
by threatofrain on Thursday October 15, 2020 @08:51PM
(#24796205)
> The tweet, in case readers thought it too subtle, contained a photograph of Tsai alongside the bellicose text. Given that any war involving Taiwan and mainland China will likely begin with an attempt to kill Tsai Ing-Wen and other senior leadership, “wipe out” should not be taken to be a mistranslation or a literary term of art.
> It means what you think it does. And Tsai Ing-Wen has a Twitter account. The tweet is, as of the writing of this post, still up. Why? Because Twitter has a significant problem applying rules and interaction norms initially developed for interpersonal conflicts between users to institutional actors (such as loosely state-controlled press entities like the Global Times) and/or individuals representing institutions (like President Tsai Ing-Wen). So a threat from one user (acting as a proxy of a government) against another individual user (the President of another government) is difficult for Twitter.
> Like it or not, conditional threats of physical harm are a part of international politics. During the Gulf War, for one, the United States threatened to execute a nuclear strike and “eliminate” Iraqi leadership if Baghdad deployed chemical weapons. And if Tsai had some means of physically threatening the personal safety of Chinese leader Xi Xingping to deter Chinese invasion of Taiwan, she would absolutely be remiss in not using all of the means at her disposal – Twitter included – to publicly communicate that he would be harmed if Beijing dared to put a single rifleman on Taiwanese beaches.
> Twitter is banned in China, but Chinese diplomats have accounts. And if Xi operated an account and Tsai made a vague but nonetheless firm threat to physically harm him if war should break out, should she be penalized?
The author doesn't intend to answer their own question. If you believe violent speech is acceptable between nations but unacceptable with individuals, what do you do when individuals represent nations?
And how does any nationally-based company go on to facilitate international discussion?
> It means what you think it does. And Tsai Ing-Wen has a Twitter account. The tweet is, as of the writing of this post, still up. Why? Because Twitter has a significant problem applying rules and interaction norms initially developed for interpersonal conflicts between users to institutional actors (such as loosely state-controlled press entities like the Global Times) and/or individuals representing institutions (like President Tsai Ing-Wen). So a threat from one user (acting as a proxy of a government) against another individual user (the President of another government) is difficult for Twitter.
> Like it or not, conditional threats of physical harm are a part of international politics. During the Gulf War, for one, the United States threatened to execute a nuclear strike and “eliminate” Iraqi leadership if Baghdad deployed chemical weapons. And if Tsai had some means of physically threatening the personal safety of Chinese leader Xi Xingping to deter Chinese invasion of Taiwan, she would absolutely be remiss in not using all of the means at her disposal – Twitter included – to publicly communicate that he would be harmed if Beijing dared to put a single rifleman on Taiwanese beaches.
> Twitter is banned in China, but Chinese diplomats have accounts. And if Xi operated an account and Tsai made a vague but nonetheless firm threat to physically harm him if war should break out, should she be penalized?
The author doesn't intend to answer their own question. If you believe violent speech is acceptable between nations but unacceptable with individuals, what do you do when individuals represent nations?
And how does any nationally-based company go on to facilitate international discussion?