[indymike]

>They are not directly responsible for anyone’s safety and have no reason to take down content that isn’t a direct threat or clear defamation.

From the article: the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed.

> That’s the police or justice system’s job.

That is not an available option to the author of this article. The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system.

[fluoridation]

>the author is asking to have false, defamatory content removed.

The author is asking to have content that he says is false removed.

>The author is alleging that false posts are being made to lay the groundwork for the author being detained and tortured by the local justice system.

Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose. Twitter can't prevent someone who can and wants to kidnap you from kidnapping you.

[chucksmash]

This is a good point and I think pretty well captures the "and what is Twitter supposed to do about it" angle.

To say "well, thus and such comedian is connected to the regime, that's why he has tweeted about me," well, what level of investigation is Twitter supposed to do that they a) disprove the allegations lobbed at OP (working for RAW provocateurs) and b) are able to support the allegation against the comedian's intent, and thus prove that the whole interaction is as the OP says it is?

Doing so goes beyond moderation, it goes beyond fact checking, it's nearly at the level of a personal background check or a trial.

What is being asked of Twitter seems totally outside the realm of what a social media company should be doing. It seems like OP wanted to do the right thing, to speak truth to power, but is now realizing that power was listening.

An account that publicly exposes your identity is not the right place to antagonize people with machine guns if you are not willing to take on personal risk, and that has nothing to do with moderation policies.

[pessimizer]

> Since the tweets may be used as an excuse to have him detained, removing them will do nothing, because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose.

This is nonsense. That's like letting someone use your gun to shoot someone because they'd be able to find a gun somewhere.

[fluoridation]

You're right, Twitter is a gun and tweets are bullets that kill. It's a perfectly apt analogy. /s

[indymike]

So basically meh, they'll torture him anyway?

[fluoridation]

If we're starting from the assumption that the government is posting false tweets that it'll use as excuses to kidnap and torture people, then I don't see what effect removing those tweets would have. A person under a real threat of violence needs real, physical protection. Anything that can be done over the Internet is insufficient.

[indymike]

It removes pretext used for justification of seizure and torture. Doing nothing enables the oppressor in this case.

[fluoridation]

>because the government could just as easily use a different medium for the same purpose