[khawkins]

>The Internet cannot remain free if we allow governments to use their power to control narratives and suppress the truth.

I wish more people applied this same line of reasoning towards the US-based social media companies themselves.

If we hold true that Twitter's influence is so powerful that world superpowers are gaming it effectively to control narratives, then why aren't people more outraged at the near constant censoring of alternative voices in the West? Why are we cheering the use of corporate power when it's wielded against an ideological opponent in the East, but when it's wielded against ideological opponents in the West we hear a chorus of "it's a private company, it can do what it wants". Ultimately, we're just rejecting communist state-power with corporatist private-power.

I can agree that the latter is preferable, but I wish people would see the parallels.

[Solvitieg]

The hive mind refuses to engage with hard-hitting analysis like this. Hence the down votes and no responses.

Outside of this scope, what is concerning me is that you can't hold a pro-china position. Look at the other comments here.

> I have some friends in China posting similar anti-protest posts on WeChat social media. It's like the news they read has a completely different story than what it's being told in legitimate new sources.

Holding a pro-china position apparently means you're reading fake news or part of a misinformation campaign.

The news we read is CORRECT, the news you read is WRONG.

We have the same problem here in the West. If you go against the church of progressivem you're a Russianbot.

Twitter needs to not get involved. It's election meddling, even if they take the "pro-democratic" side.

[meowface]

It's not election meddling. It's counter-meddling. Counter-meddling is itself kind of a form of meddling, but you're left with no choice if your platform is in the process of being deceitfully meddled with by one of the most powerful states in human history.

[ropiwqefjnpoa]

Agreed. Would Twitter take the same stand against a regime whose policies it agreed with?

[kpU8efre7r]

Both parties aren't perfect but compared to state media, great firewall, social credit, kidnapping, and concentration camps it's weird to point out the shortcomings of Western social media companies.

[girvo]

Twitter can't "disappear" me in real life. That's the difference, I think?

[rtpg]

> why aren't people more outraged at the near constant censoring of alternative voices in the West?

This is making a false assumption that the "censorship" is because of being different instead of those people not following super strict terms of service like "please don't use our service to start mass harassment campaigns of other people" or "don't advocate for genocide".

Hell, the constant complaining about twitter ("the hell site") on its own platform is proof of something.

You're saying "X happened to person with characteristic Y here, and people are cheering, therefore it's because of Y". That's rarely what's going on.

Most people are fine with China Daily being on Twitter in principle, just like Voice of America has an account despite it being basically American propaganda targeted abroad. The problem came in the specific actions being taken by these people.

Perhaps some ideologies lead to behavior that get them in trouble