[dcow]

This really sucks to hear. What’s unclear to me is whether Twitter is being negligent or abnormal here or whether this is just shitty world politics unfolding partly on Twitter. Twitter is being used by both sides to fight over a narrative. Nothing new in that respect.

The author doesn't really propose a solution other than Twitter essentially siding with him and take (what appears to me to be) a political stance. Of course moderating political topics isn’t outside Twitter’s wheelhouse, but this is what you get as a society when you let arbitrary entities arbitrate speech: ambiguity and unclear expectations.

On the one hand, it’s reasonable for the author to expect that Twitter removes clear misinformation from their platform since that’s what they purportedly claim to do. On the other hand doing so would go against a national narrative and piss off lots of Pakistanis. Uh oh.

Maybe Twitter was never about being arbiters of facts and instead just pandering to the popular political narrative of the time? Or maybe they are objective and they’re just trying their best and we’re all human and we’ll do better next time? Regardless, this is the reason people get so frustrated with censorship: it cannot be applied objectively and fairly in every case.

Twitter and social commentary aside: sounds like the author needs political asylum or at least real protection. Twitter is not the right entity to depend on to handle this situation, I fear.

[DoreenMichele]

Twitter is being used by both sides to fight over a narrative. Nothing new in that respect.

It's a narrative that could get one side kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned for years and potentially killed.

I've seen previous incidents where Facebook and other platforms were nightmare fuel for locals and the platform didn't even have moderators who spoke the local language for purposes of reviewing the issue.

These platforms are thrilled to get millions of new users in various countries then wash their hands of the consequences to those users and their real lives. I don't think criticism of this fact is unreasonable. Locals just want a fair shake similar to what Westerners get in such cases.

[SpicyLemonZest]

But isn't it more complicated than that? A Western journalist falsely accused of being an agent for a foreign power wouldn't get much help from Twitter either - I'm familiar with a couple who are routinely accused of being Russian agents.

I get why this guy wants more, and I can understand the perspective that Twitter has to take into account the context of local countries and which kinds of speech might be dangerous. But can Twitter really adopt an explicit corporate policy that Pakistan isn't allowed to have as much free speech as the rest of the world because it's too violent?

[Maursault]

> Pakistan isn't allowed to have as much free speech as the rest of the world because it's too violent?

Not all speech is free speech. In the US, there are limitations, such as harmful or offensive content, and this includes speech that is both false and dangerous.

This is not a free speech issue. The OP is being stalked. Fundamentally, stalking is a threat of injury or death, as well as unwanted surveillance by an individual or group, and stalking behavior includes precisely this type of harassment. The OP's life is in obvious danger. This is a criminal issue.

If the OP is in the US, I'd recommend researching how to request political asylum.

Unsolicited advice to all: stay off of any social media unless it includes anonymity. Protect your identity. In the US, only two things can happen to you by participating in non-anonymous social media:

#1) nothing

#2) you get fired

Pakistan has raised the stakes and turned #2 into "you get abducted and killed."

Fuck Twitter. What a shitty platform. If I wanted to effect political change in a third world country, I would found a secret society, secretly install a printing press somewhere, and run it 24/7. That is how you kill fascists.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I just don't understand what we're talking about here. The source article doesn't say that anyone has stalked him, surveilled him, or threatened him. His complaints are that someone said he's "inciting violence" when that's not an accurate characterization of his perspective, and that someone said he works for an organization he doesn't work for. In the US neither of these things are a big deal and could not be a criminal issue.

Again, I do understand that the stakes are higher in the kind of country where people are routinely lynched for blasphemy. But I don't think it's a lack of cultural sensitivity or some blindness to consequences that stops Twitter from applying different standards here! Most Pakistanis would not, I think, appreciate being told that because they live in the wrong country Twitter won't let them speak so freely.

[Maursault]

> The source article doesn't say that anyone has stalked him, surveilled him, or threatened him. His complaints are that someone said he's "inciting violence" when that's not an accurate characterization of his perspective, and that someone said he works for an organization he doesn't work for. In the US neither of these things are a big deal and could not be a criminal issue.

No. I'm the one who said he is being stalked.

> In Pakistan, activists and journalists are routinely picked up (abducted) and tortured by the country's police and secret services. Same happened this time, some of the top journalists and anchors were picked up - some without warrants with fake cases filed post-arrest. Some of these journalists remain under custody till date. These journalists, according to reports, have been stripped and tortured under custody.

> The current Minister for Planning and Development falsely accused me of inciting violence, probably in the hopes of building a false case and narrative against me, when I had only called for people to question their politicians. These people were showing their frustration because I was out of their reach and could not be abducted for the time being. What came from the Minister was maybe an exaggeration or a veiled threat, but what started happening after was more insidious. To start off their harassment campaign against me,

He is definitely being threatened and stalked. It's the abuse of the parody account to defame the OP. That would be all fine and good if not for the regular disappearing of Pakistani journalists and protesters. If anything like this happened in the US, let's say the KKK started disappearing journalists and protesters, once that kind of environment existed, any sort of online shenanigans spotlighting private individuals, slandering and defaming them, if it regularly happened to the disappeared before they disappeared, then it would be a very big deal, investigated, prosecuted, with felonies and significant jail time delivered, even without that particular victim being kidnapped or murdered.

[specialist]

Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.

If social medias don't want to sweat the small stuff -- accountability for being the disease vector for genocide, pogroms, and personal vendettas -- then they shouldn't operate in that capacity.

[dcow]

Yes I agree 100%. If Twitter is going to arbitrate then they better do so fairly and soundly across all peoples. My criticism is of the expectation that such fair arbitration can happen unilaterally in the first place especially in a politically charged environment. Twitter has not demonstrated an ability to be impartial and fair in the past. They are a US company partial to US politics. Specifically, they lean rather liberal in their moderation decisions. As you say, they want users, not justice (even though at certain times they have made small motions towards perceived “social” justice). They are simply not equip to replace the judicial systems of the world and expecting them to do so is a little bit crazy in my opinion. The reality is they have no legal authority anywhere.

I agree the author’s criticism is fair. My point was a reminder that the expectations here may not live up to reality and it might be best to seek other help. Even if Twitter removes this misinformation, the author will not be safe and will likely, if the story is to be believed, be detained and tortured the minute they step onto Pakistani soil, sadly. I think the reminder that “Twitter can’t make you safe” is a fair and practical one too, despite whether it should have to be that way or not.

[snickerbockers]

> Maybe Twitter was never about being arbiters of facts and instead just pandering to the popular political narrative of the time?

To some extent they do see themselves as arbiters of truth, you can get auto-banned if you make a tweet and their AI thinks you're spreading falsehoods about COVID or the 2020 US presidential election. It actually happened to me last year over a completely benign joke and i had to wait about six weeks for a mod to get around to reviewing my appeal before i was allowed back on.

If they really cared about protecting middle-eastern activists they could add "israeli spy" to their list of phrases that get you auto-banned.

[hackerlight]

Preventing harassment isn't the same as "taking a political stance".

[Bakary]

Most people don't think their stance is ever political. But it very clearly is here since Twitter would be directly at odds with the Pakistani government if they sided with the journalist.

[satellite2]

From his description, he only suspect the government to be behind the troll accounts. So by blocking/fact checking the trolls Twitter wouldn't take any risk it seems. It seems more likely they are unable to understand or verify the messages of the trolls.

[dcow]

I agree—if only it were that clear and simple.

[hackerlight]

It is simple in many cases that are currently allowed on Twitter. They aren't making a good faith effort to solve the issue. Evidence: Allowing quote tweets directed to users who disabled replies. This is always used as a vector of further harassment.

[waqasx]

I dont want political asylum because of many reasons, i have my parents and my family back home. I am not asking Twitter to side with me, you have read my post, you can clearly see that misinfo is being spread about me. These are verifiable lies. They are verifiably dangerous after basic scrutiny, i am asking Twitter to do their job that they already claim that they do. That is provide a space that is safer from harassment and targeted attacks like this one.

[natch]

Making Twitter safe will not make you safe. It would absolutely be great if Twitter could do more, but the true issue lies elsewhere.

Unless you recognize this, and accept that you don’t always get everything you want, then you may be living in a dangerous delusion.

You don’t want to leave Pakistan, and you also presumably don’t want to compromise your principles, and you also want to not be killed for your journalism… perhaps it is wise to consider whether you can realistically have all of these things you want, when the truth is you probably can’t.

All that being said, I don’t fault you for wanting Twitter to do more. But for your own well being you should not consider that the only angle you need to work on here.

[MichaelCollins]

> You don’t want to leave Pakistan

My read is that he's in New York, but has family still in Pakistan.

[natch]

> I dont want political asylum because of many reasons

Good point but but he apparently does not even want the relative safety of being able to stay away from Pakistan. We all have family in various places, that’s a given. He could also try to get them out.

Making Pakistan safe for free speech seems beyond optimistic for now.

[watwut]

The ask here is not for twitter on itself be some kind of safe place. It is for twitter as a company or platform to stop enabling this sort of thing. Or at least, enable it less.

[crusty]

(TRIGGER WARNING: I write long sentences.)

"Making Twitter safe will not make you safe. It would absolutely be great if Twitter could do more, but the true issue lies elsewhere."

Along with the rest of the reply, this is some 100% GRADE A cynicism right here.

To this cynicism - clearly there's a danger to a named journalist just from the 'offended' party reading the product of their journalism (in this case Twitter posts or posts they distribute via Twitter posts), but if as the OP suggests, the government is using Twitter to produce an erroneous record and public justification for extra-judicial violence against journalists and political foes, and that without this ability to use Twitter to manipulate the narrative surrounding an individual target, they would not be as emboldened to perpetrate the violence against that individual, then the use of Twitter by the harassing party here is clearly enabling violence, moving the risk from a general threat to a political journalist's safety to a clear and present danger to the individual.

Waving proverbial hands at this by noting that journalism can be dangerous if the party that doesn't like it can see your journalism, and therefore, promoting, distributing, or publishing it via Twitter isn't Twitter's problem because the threat arises from the the distribution in general, not the medium, ignores the role the author suggests Twitter plays in the manipulation of the public sentiment towards targeted individuals for the purpose of eliminating a critical level of moral outrage that exists as potential blowback and might otherwise provide some degree of safe cover and prevent the extra-judicial violence the 'aggrieved' wish to subject the target to.

Aslo: I'm surprised Twitter doesn't have rules that restrict the use of "parody" accounts against non-verified (or non-verfiable) accounts. I can't imagine that Twitter in the US hasn't previously been confronted with this issue by high-schoolers bullying and or cyber-stalking peers on Twitter with anonymous "parody" accounts.

Back to the cynicism: "Unless you recognize this, and accept that you don’t always get everything you want, then you may be living in a dangerous delusion.

You don’t want to leave Pakistan, and you also presumably don’t want to compromise your principles, and you also want to not be killed for your journalism… perhaps it is wise to consider whether you can realistically have all of these things you want, when the truth is you probably can’t.

All that being said, I don’t fault you for wanting Twitter to do more. But for your own well being you should not consider that the only angle you need to work on here."

What couldn't this be applied to? Think you're child's school bus operator is being negligent by not installing seat belts? Sure, you complaining might help, but the real fault lies with you for letting her get on the bus.

Think the coal mine you work for is shirking their safety responsibilities? Sure, you can complain, but the real problem is you bring willing to go down that mine.

Think too many 737-Maxes are falling out of the sky? Go ahead and complain, but the real fault is yours for flying.

Danger is just standing over here swinging it's arms (and maybe moving around when you aren't looking), it's not dangers' fault of you get in it's way.

[natch]

Good comment. Unusual perhaps on HN (my cynicism again), I actually read it.

I mostly agree. You have a very good point and make it well.

Especially the part about how a better set of Twitter policies and enforcement against this kind of targeting could help to provide cover for hard hitting journalism and thereby contribute to positive impact by that journalism, helping change things for the better.

Fair enough, although then they could also ban Twitter as some countries do.

My main point was that aside from anything Twitter should do, he should also protect himself. The same point is valid in any of the other examples you listed. I won’t fly on a 737 MAX. I’m not going to work in a coal mine. Etc. Of course I will take some worthwhile risks, each one decided in context. All of us do.

Yes it would be good and helpful not just to this guy but to all journalism and to the general public who benefit from light being shone on stuff, for journalists, or anyone for that matter, to be shielded from this kind of nonsense. Even though it may be easier said than done, Twitter should try to do it to the extent that is workable.

They have lots of rules preventing an individual from harassing others. They don’t seem to have rules preventing an entire system of ideologically corrupt people from targeting a person who wants to call out corruption. Again it’s hard though, algorithmically and at scale.

In the meantime he should take steps to get free from that place.

> Danger is just standing over here swinging it's arms (and maybe moving around when you aren't looking), it's not dangers' fault of you get in it's way.

Absolutely. Of course if an unreasonable danger is intentionally or irresponsibly created by people, then those people are at fault, but the general situation in life is you don’t go around walking off buildings and wondering why there is no safety net. Yeah safety nets are great but they are not always practical. At scale, this safety net on Twitter is tremendously hard to do, although maybe they should make a special effort for problematic situations like zealotry and corruption.

[logicalmonster]

Like many people here, I don't know enough about Pakistani politics to weigh in on the objective truth of this situation one way or the other. I would only make 4 small comments.

1) You claim these are verifiable lies. From your perspective that is the case as (unless you're a programmed sleeper agent) you're in position to know the truth about whether you're an agent of some foreign government or not. However, from a neutral or 3rd party perspective, this seems a bit like a he-said/she-said kind of case. And from your perspective, disproving this would be hard as you'd seem to have to prove a negative "I'm not an agent" claim, which is kind of hard to do.

2) A personal opinion, but it would probably be very helpful to your case if you can make a clear, bullet-point list of the alleged verifiable lies, who told them and their position in the Pakistani government, and your rebuttal to their claim. I read your piece and checked out your links, but these are all buried under a wall of text that many people won't have the attention span to process given the format.

3) One of the problems with Twitter is that they try and involve themselves in really tough subjective cases of truthiness. I'm not sure that Twitter trying to fact-check and remove what you believe are lies would be the best outcome here. If I were to give a suggestion to Twitter on how to handle this, the best thing Twitter could probably do would be to either temporarily verify him, or create some kind of temporary "At Risk" badge given to a limited number of people in dicy situations like this to bring attention to their cause so they can't be summarily disappeared without a trial.

4) To any journalists reading this, I hope Waqas' story gives you a renewed appreciation for not trusting government claims at face value. Whether his story is true or not, many journalists seem to too often rush to print government claims about anything and everything as gospel. A journalists' job isn't to be a tape recorder for government officials and merely print their quotes, you've got to dive into the background of their claims and consider the other side. If government officials claim X is a foreign agent, you should consider every angle and claim.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

If not on Twitter, won't these lies be spread elsewhere?

It sounds like you believe you're in real danger. If so, you have bigger problems.

You mention the comedian and the journalist, and you try to paint this as a giant conspiracy. But what you've laid out in the article seems like it could easily just be people being morons and taking the government's word for everything.

You also don't even mention what you want Twitter to actually do.

Are they supposed to ban those accounts? Are they supposed to label those Tweets as untrue?

While this sounds like an improvement - and probably what they should do - I don't see how this actually helps with your larger problem of potential life and death...

[vorpalhex]

So you get your wish, Twitter bans a bunch of tweets.

Your life is still in danger. You haven't changed that situation. You still need to either flee or make plans for your sudden passing.

[dcow]

I’ll admit it’s not clear to me as an outsider to this conflict whether there is clear misinformation or whether this is a matter of political perspective (not because I’m sympathetic to what’s happened in Pakistan, rather because of they style in which you communicated in the post). It is only through discussing this here that I think the tractable request to just remove misinformation is becoming clear. The whole thing about comedy accounts is distracting since parody is allowed, as you know. So I was left confused wether there is factual misinformation, or just a gravely damaging narrative being painted.

If I may, it might help for you to clearly lead with the factually incorrect things being said about you and then dive into supporting evidence to back the misinformation claim.

Still, part of my comment was a serious reminder that Twitter is not a a real authority even if they pretend to be one in fair-weather and if your life is credibly in danger you should seek people and organizations who can actually help you protect it. I truly hope this site can help you find the needed connections.

[pygy_]

> this is what you get as a society when you let arbitrary entities arbitrate speech: ambiguity and unclear expectations.

The platform allows speech amplification. It used to be that lies could run around the world before the truth could get its boots on. Social apps now make this orders of magniture worse...

Rather than moderating content, Twitter could add systems that automatically tame virality (hide a post for n minutes after x retweets/impressions), with bias against new accounts.

[plankers]

twitter is interested in making money. there's far more money to be made pandering to governments than in pandering to dissidents. the content moderation policies are just extra steps in justifying that stance.