Gatekeepers or Censors? How Tech Manages Online Speech


The simultaneous takedowns across YouTube, Spotify and Facebook are troubling, said Kevin Bankston, the director of the Open Technology Institute at New America, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. The number of bans in quick succession from multiple companies raised the specter that this could have been influenced by outside political pressure rather than a straightforward application of company policies, he said.

Twitter’s decision to allow Mr. Jones and Infowars to stay on its platform may reflect a commitment to consistent policy enforcement, Mr. Bankston said.

“A Twitter that’s not accountable to its own rules is not accountable to anybody,” he said.

In a series of tweets late Tuesday, Mr. Dorsey suggested that other tech companies had caved to political pressure in their decision to remove Mr. Jones from their platforms and argued that journalists — not Twitter — were better suited to fact-checking Mr. Jones’ claims.

“He hasn’t violated our rules,” Mr. Dorsey wrote. “We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.”

— Kate Conger

Apple: ‘I’ll Know It When I See It’

Without a social-media platform, Apple typically avoids the content controversies that ensnare its peers. Yet the iPhone maker still makes many decisions about what apps, podcasts, songs and videos it will make available on its popular services.

Apple on Sunday banned five of the six Infowars podcasts from its podcasts service. Apple determined the sixth podcast, RealNews with David Knight, did not violate its policies, which prohibit podcasts that “could be construed as racist, misogynist, or homophobic” or that depict “graphic sex, violence, gore, illegal drugs, or hate themes.” In the past, Apple has also removed neo-Nazi songs and the Nazi anthem from iTunes.



Source link

Tech