> As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you.

If I remember correctly, a lot of violence and multiple revolutions happened with the help of Twitter and YouTube all over the world. As long as violence is not in the US, it does not count, I suppose. That was probably what GP meant by saying "double standards".

There is both good violence and bad violence. Blanket rules don't exist, despite our wish they did.

Bad violence is against me and people I like, good violence is against people who I don't like — am I right?

It’s funny how these arguments always go the same way. X Group is horrible because they did Y action, but if I do Y action it’s fine, because I’m with the good guys.

The alternative, that all oppressed people just have to accept their oppression is even more intolerable, IMO.

I would agree with this. Various world leaders did 10x of what Trump did on Twitter, but since it wasn’t in the US no actions were taken.

At least Google has openly admitted to censoring political content of various political perspectives.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html

>As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you.

That's both optimistic and naive given that TOS can change at any time, and interpretation aren't subject to appeal with a transparent process.

Yes, it can change any time and you can follow what's changed. It's also open to appeal to the company and I have seen mistakes corrected.

My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. What Turkish gov wants to achieve is that, taking down the content they don't like. They have taken over all mainstream TV channels and you wouldn't see a line of critic on any channel, if you do it's quite likely you will not be invited to debate next time.

clearly you never watch TV in turkey. there are critics everyday on very political TV programmes. and usually they try to get a representative from each political party to make it as fair as possible. except HDP, which has substential ties with terror organisations and very bad reputation in turkey. west think there is blockade against anti-government political fractions but in reality there is blockade against western puppets. that's drives western countries crazy due to not have any soft power on turkey.

It's also the American conception of free speech, which culturally differs from most countries. In the US, if a private company censors arbitrarily, it's still freedom of speech because you're still allowed to build your own competing business, and anyway it's your fault for agreeing to the legal terms and conditions. Even if it's a monopoly, Americans view freedom as something only governments remove.

Terms of service cannot supersede local laws. If Twitter wants to do business in a country, they need to comply. Twitter can choose to give up ad revenue and reach. Turkish government may have bad motive. However, democratic governments around the world can and should regulate social media in their countries per the local laws.

So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address?

Where is the line here? If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user?

If I write that in another language, that local gov don't like, does it give Turkish gov right to get that removed?

> So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address?

Maybe. How a global communication network should interact with local laws and customs is in many aspects still an open problem that we just have begun to tackle.

> If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user?

Welcome in a globalized world. I hope this won't be the eventual outcome, but this is definitly not a trivial question to answer. This stuff is why we have international organisations like the UN etc.

For Turkey, the limit is 1M daily users from Turkey.

If you are beyond this limit, you are required to have a representative or the bandwidth limitations are applied and fines start to accumulate. If you don’t intend to do business in Turkey, you just go on with your business and loose that market.

Oh, btw, it’s likely that they will request global content removal. If I recall correctly Youtube or Wikipedia was blocked for years because of this.

That's how it works in most other trades. They can go to WTO if they find it against its policies.

what if I live in Gaza and tweet in english badmouth about jews?

won't twitter censor my tweets for hate speech,?

github and gitlab are US companies and censored projects only for the owner being iranian

> ... or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you.

Note that tech companies can change the terms of service at arbitrary points in time after you joined the service. You're of course free to reject the updated terms of service, in which case they will - wait for it - block you.

Why was AMREN banned from youtube then?

> ... Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models.

The part with "in union" is not really explained by ML models. These de-platforming actions are done manually and apparently one-sided.

Just for fun you can look up why Trump was banned on Twitter and see Khamenei's worst tweets from months prior, that were still up a week ago or so (nevermind him being banned). You find tons of those examples.

Also the TOS does not matter.

Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.

That kicks you off platforms you barely use? It's manually done. Don't hide behind "the machine did it"; it doesn't make sense.

I didn't say machines banned trump, I said evaluation of his tweets was in a context, not just what's written.

Just wanna point out, that he was not only banned on Twitter. It didn't make sense there, but on Youtube, Twitch, Shopify etc, it's just stupid and not covered by any of your excuses.

I read Twitter's reasoning for banning Trump. Basically they banned him for tweets:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

I don't see any violence in those tweets and I don't understand what kind of person could classify those tweets as a violent ones. I guess only kind of person who wanted to ban him for anything.

Yeah, it just doesn't make sense. When I blatantly ignore all of his tweets claiming Biden lost, he won the election and that massive election fraud took place, I just can't understand why they would ban him!