List items
Items from the current list are shown below.
Blog
20 Aug 2023 : Reflections on Leaving Twitter #
Last month I left Twitter (just a week prior to it being renamed as X). I shut my account completely, posting on my blog about my reasons. As I explain there, although I approve of many of the recent changes made by X, such as the shift away from advertising revenue and towards a subscription-based funding model, there were several other changes that I couldn't accept. Chief among them was the closing off of access to users who aren't logged in with an account.
That was before the news broke this week that X had been failing to act on accounts that it had itself identified as posting antisemitic content for "months". Be aware that the content is quite shocking before clicking on the Media Matters link, but this stood out to me from the original Media Matters report:
I didn't talk about freedom of expression in my previous post, despite it being one of the big discussions that comes up around Twitter. That's because at the time it wasn't a major factor in my decision. But I want to make my position clear on this.
If I hadn't closed my account already, then the recent news would have made me close my account.
Freedom of expression is an important right. I believe in it as a principle. But it's also important to understand what freedom of expression actually means, at least to me. Freedom of thought entitles you to hold any view or opinion; freedom of expression entitles you to express these views. And they both protect you from persecution from the state based on these views.
To clarify, this is how freedom of expression is codified in Protocol 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This isn't the full protocol and I recommend reading it in its entirety. Nevertheless it makes clear that the protection is aimed at preventing interference from the state. This is a legal and political document, not an ethical one, and as with all things of this nature it's more nuanced than this. But it serves as a useful illustration.
Crucially, freedom of expression doesn't enshrine the right for anyone to post any opinion on any platform. This would be absurd. It would prevent platforms being topic-specific (e.g. a forum dedicated to cakes, or policing), it would block any form of content moderation and it would forbid publications from having a political slant.
That doesn't mean that any particular platform must moderate content either. Twitter, or X, should be free to moderate content, or free not to. And I should be free to participate in such a platform, or not. That's my position.
However, I do accept that until recently Twitter's reach and the way it was being used meant it had acquired a public-service-like role in sharing information from government, commercial and social organisations, as well as from individuals. This role arguably attracted additional responsibilities to protect freedom of expression. In fact, that's a big part of the reason why I felt it was so important for Twitter to be accessible even without an account. But by restricting access it's now made clear that it doesn't want this role, so I don't feel the responsibility applies in quite the same way any more.
But I digress. The point I want to make is that if X had been taking its obligation to protect freedom of expression seriously, then I could understand its desire not to block accounts, even if they share content that I personally find repugnant. The fact is, X hasn't been taking this role seriously at all. There are multiple actions Twitter has taken recently that make this clear.
For example, in December Twitter started blocking tweets containing links to rival services. Earlier this month X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate in an attempt to silence criticism of X's content moderation policies. Just last week X starting adding a five second delay to hyperlinked external resources expressing views the company disagrees with. And most egregiously, in May Twitter also acquiesced to censorship requirements from the government of the Republic of Türkiye. These are all actions aimed at curtailing expression.
At the same time the company has been reinstating the accounts of those with known extreme views.
When juxtaposed like this, it looks far more like X is pushing a particular viewpoint than championing freedom of expression.
Personally I don't want any part of a platform that is openly promoting views antithetical to mine, while restricting views I agree with. I'd be happy contributing to a platform hosting views I disagree with if it were to uphold freedom of expression. But promoting extreme views while blocking moderate ones: that's something else entirely.
That was before the news broke this week that X had been failing to act on accounts that it had itself identified as posting antisemitic content for "months". Be aware that the content is quite shocking before clicking on the Media Matters link, but this stood out to me from the original Media Matters report:
“The suspension came only after the company verified the account; allowed it to repeatedly post antisemitic content; and monetized it by placing advertisements for major brands on the account. X's monetization of the account also happened even though the company had reportedly acknowledged that the antisemitic account engaged in ‘violent speech.’”
I didn't talk about freedom of expression in my previous post, despite it being one of the big discussions that comes up around Twitter. That's because at the time it wasn't a major factor in my decision. But I want to make my position clear on this.
If I hadn't closed my account already, then the recent news would have made me close my account.
Freedom of expression is an important right. I believe in it as a principle. But it's also important to understand what freedom of expression actually means, at least to me. Freedom of thought entitles you to hold any view or opinion; freedom of expression entitles you to express these views. And they both protect you from persecution from the state based on these views.
To clarify, this is how freedom of expression is codified in Protocol 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”
This isn't the full protocol and I recommend reading it in its entirety. Nevertheless it makes clear that the protection is aimed at preventing interference from the state. This is a legal and political document, not an ethical one, and as with all things of this nature it's more nuanced than this. But it serves as a useful illustration.
Crucially, freedom of expression doesn't enshrine the right for anyone to post any opinion on any platform. This would be absurd. It would prevent platforms being topic-specific (e.g. a forum dedicated to cakes, or policing), it would block any form of content moderation and it would forbid publications from having a political slant.
That doesn't mean that any particular platform must moderate content either. Twitter, or X, should be free to moderate content, or free not to. And I should be free to participate in such a platform, or not. That's my position.
However, I do accept that until recently Twitter's reach and the way it was being used meant it had acquired a public-service-like role in sharing information from government, commercial and social organisations, as well as from individuals. This role arguably attracted additional responsibilities to protect freedom of expression. In fact, that's a big part of the reason why I felt it was so important for Twitter to be accessible even without an account. But by restricting access it's now made clear that it doesn't want this role, so I don't feel the responsibility applies in quite the same way any more.
But I digress. The point I want to make is that if X had been taking its obligation to protect freedom of expression seriously, then I could understand its desire not to block accounts, even if they share content that I personally find repugnant. The fact is, X hasn't been taking this role seriously at all. There are multiple actions Twitter has taken recently that make this clear.
For example, in December Twitter started blocking tweets containing links to rival services. Earlier this month X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate in an attempt to silence criticism of X's content moderation policies. Just last week X starting adding a five second delay to hyperlinked external resources expressing views the company disagrees with. And most egregiously, in May Twitter also acquiesced to censorship requirements from the government of the Republic of Türkiye. These are all actions aimed at curtailing expression.
At the same time the company has been reinstating the accounts of those with known extreme views.
When juxtaposed like this, it looks far more like X is pushing a particular viewpoint than championing freedom of expression.
Personally I don't want any part of a platform that is openly promoting views antithetical to mine, while restricting views I agree with. I'd be happy contributing to a platform hosting views I disagree with if it were to uphold freedom of expression. But promoting extreme views while blocking moderate ones: that's something else entirely.