Nigeria Suspends Twitter Indefinitely After President's Tweet is Deleted (businessinsider.com) 95
The Nigerian government suspended all Twitter operations in the country on Friday. From a report: Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the Nigerian minister of information and culture, said the decision stemmed from citizens using the platform for activities "capable of undermining Nigeria's corporate existence," according to a press release. The move follows Twitter's decision to remove a post by Nigeria's president Muhammadu Buhari that threatened to punish those responsible for recent attacks on electoral offices and police stations, and referenced the country's 1960s civil war that killed 1 million people, Reuters reported. "Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand," Buhari said in a tweet before Twitter removed the post for violating its "abusive behavior" policy.
Who will save the Nigerian Millionares? (Score:3)
Without Twitter to plead the case of the ....
Oh screw it, I don't have the energy to even finish the joke.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of Trump's insurrectionists say they violently attacked our capitol at Trump's direct orders.
Why is he still free?
Lock him up.
Violently attacked the capital, without weapons?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you to chicken shit to fight without using your hands?
Thats how ridiculous you sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, their nerf guns only did a paltry $30 million in damage. That's such a small amount that the Republicans voted to not waste time with an investigation over it.
Re: (Score:1)
Can I see a break down of that $30M?
$0.2M - Windows, siding, trash bags and cleaning products.
$14M - Democrat special interests (last minute addition)
$10M - Independently sourced 3rd party contractor listed as "Hunter's Handy Man Services". Incorporated 3 days earlier.
$1M - 10% for the "Big Guy"
$4.8 - Mental therapy for liberals that suffered PTSD
Meanwhile BLM causes $2,000M in damages and kills cops.
Re: (Score:2)
If cops kill a man for something other than a capital crime, then take your rage out on the cops like when that police station was torched. Don't take it out on black homes, black business, and black schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just sue them for wrongful death and walk off with a ton of money.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them had a flag pole.
Re: (Score:1)
He'll probably end up locked up for white-collar crimes he committed before and/or during his time in office. You can get away with all sorts of white-collar crimes as long as you don't let the targeting system of the extremely resource-limited white collar crime investigation system, the public outrage machine, light you up. And this dumbass slid right into the spotlight with a top hat on and jazz hands out.
Twitter blocks you.. You block Twitter (Score:1)
Sounds fair to me
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, indeed, twitter should not have censored..
Re:Twitter blocks you.. You block Twitter (Score:4, Insightful)
Only one of those two events are censorship.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the deat[post censorer by Twitter reason: violence]"
Re: (Score:1)
Twitter drew first blood
Re:Twitter blocks you.. You block Twitter (Score:5, Interesting)
This. Why is this so hard to understand for some people to understand? By removing a tweet that doesn't cause imminent harm to anyone, Twitter is basically saying "The readers of this tweet are too dumb to draw conclusions for themselves" or worse, "The content of this tweet doesn't agree with our views."
Disclaimer: I did not read the tweet, but I doubt it would have caused imminent harm to anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
You must own some Twitter stock. Seriously. Since when is it a good idea to make these kinds of decisions for people? I read the tweet and while it sounds like a threat, it is not imminent, and politicians use lines like these all the time. By removing a tweet like that, Twitter has shown that it's no better than the dictator (ahem, "president") who posted the tweet.
Re: (Score:2)
As a monarchist, I agree with you 100%. People are too dumb to decide what's best for themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is I agree with you. Not all people, but a greater percent of the population for sure, but under their current situation only. I have lived under monarchy and a semi-republic (Iran) and then in the U.S. for many years and I cannot bring myself to agree that a monarch should choose what's best for people.
Of course it all comes down to educating the masses, but the way the current path of the corporation growth has taken us is not conducive at all to providing what's best for the people and
Re:Twitter blocks you.. You block Twitter (Score:5, Funny)
Now all of Nigeria is fully compliant with Twitter's policies. That's amazing! Everyone should do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny part is that you imagine that if mass violence breaks out, you're not going to be one of the ones swinging.
Re: (Score:3)
With gems like [slashdot.org] "Sounds like the answer is to get rid of voting" and "I see little evidence democracy produces competent governments, and the greater the franchise is extended, the more incompetent they become," I have no problem imagining that your idjit militia is planning insurrection part two. Problem is, the uniformed military isn't going to follow along, and a good number of the rest of us are bearing arms too.
Things to think about while you threaten your
Re: (Score:2)
I want to look out of my window and see an Enlightened(TM) corpse swinging from every lamppost
You almost had that along with a president-for-life.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter censors the president, the president censors Twitter. Too bad we can't do that in this country.
Twitter censored the President. I deleted my Twitter account. What they do from this point on is of no concern to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Good thing we can't. I'm tired of Republican Cancel Culture.
--
Conservatism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The government shutting down a company's media platform because they disagree with their message is censorship. A company's media platform choosing not to carry your message, is not censorship.
Free speech (at least as it pertains to the US) is the right to speak, it does not obligate others to provide you with a platform or access to a preexisting audience. It works exactly like the 2nd - you're allowed to own a gun, but Smith and Wesson doesn't have to give it to you for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll bite. I was very curious when I saw your post. I went to the article posted at the other end of your link, and saw nothing about private property having "to adhere to the same restrictions as the government on speech". I do see that, in the instance of "Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019)", that it was Trump, a government official, who was enjoined from banning people from his Twitter "interactive space". It would seem his very use of someone's private property for government purposes
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign nations have a right to legislate and enforce laws as they see fit. Nigeria is not a subservient vassal state of US, but a sovereign nation. Twitter is merely a corporation, that is not sovereign. It has to function within confines of laws and regulations of each sovereign nation if it wants to operate there. "Law of the land" is a thing.
Your weird appeals to "but in US legislation, it's worded differently" are idiotic at best and just plain malicious at worst. If you want to play legislation, Nig
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know much about mathematics, do you?
"Corporate " existence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The term "corporate" was used correctly to mean "of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals".
Its literally in the dictionary!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this reminds me of a few recent incidents in which an amazon listings (presumably by somebody reliant on a dictionary or autotranslation) used the N-word in reference to black shoes, or in another instance a doll with dark skin.
Re: "Corporate " existence? (Score:2)
Clearly it does but maybe you are correct only on America?
Re: (Score:2)
Except it might not be a translation at all. The official site for the ministry uses those words and many educated people in Africa actually use a fairly formal sounding English compared to the US normal versions.
So he could well have said the statement in English, using those very words and using them properly.
Just because the usage is different in US does not make it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually now heard the minister talk about the twitter ban and he spoke very proper sounding English and used the same words. So not a translation but direct quote.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably translation of some concept of the country continuing as an ongoing legal entity.
Re: (Score:3)
It is used as such quite often.
Like in:
A History Of Political Theory
by Sabine George H.
"Human law arises by the corporate action of a people setting up rules to govern the acts of its members, or conversely, a state is the body of men who owe obedience to a given body of law."
and
"The state, then, is a corporate body, membership in which is the common possession of all its citizens; it exists to supply its members with the advantages of mutual aid and just government."
Lol (Score:4, Insightful)
If Twitter got banned then why doesn't Twitter just create their own internet backbone that allows this kind of behaviour?
Re: (Score:2)
But to answer your question, this *does* happen. Or at least in a way. It's somewhat less tolerated now but many Chinese people used to have small satellite dishes to pick up western media.
But yes it would be much harder in this case. Twitter would have to launch their own internet
Re:Lol (Score:4, Informative)
Gab was funded via Patreon or PayPal donations.
Twitter cunts harassed Patreon or PayPal until they cut off service to Gab, thereby cutting off their ability to fund themselves.
So then they created Hatreon, which is a Patreon clone for people who've been blacklisted by services with limp wristed managers.
Twitter cunts then harassed VISA until they cut off VISA payments to Hatreon, killing the site.
Basically, it's exactly the same in the end, you're wrong.
http://stonetoss.com/comic/build-big/
Re: (Score:1)
Would you mind posting your mailing address? I'd like to send you a money order for $0.02, just to demonstrate how fucking stupid it is to believe that it's impossible to send money without VISA, Patreon, and PayPal.
What really happened is that the typical demographic of these alt-right social media cesspits, is one made up of moochers who only will use a platform funded on someone else's dime. There's a name for conservatives who hate the idea of socializing the cost of something until their ideology com
Re: (Score:2)
it begins with an "h".
helicopters?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have an argument if it weren't for the fact that you extend "mooching" all the way to the point of the entire banking and financial system as well as basic fucking infrastructure, and "alt-right" is literally everyone who isn't fringe left and further.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but if the only difference is the magnitude of the effort needed to circumvent the ban, censorship by public and private entities can still be equated. In addition, you have the level of difficulty reversed. Twitter has enough money to launch a satellite and start an ISP, but the typical banned Twitter user can not afford to build, maintain, and host a website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If two things are the same except for having to take on a well-trained, heavily-armed military, those things are.... not the same at all.
I know you are trying to imply that the government banning twitter is the greater burden to overcome, but since twitter is a corporation, it can't go to jail.
If AWS chooses not to do business with somebody, the police don't come show if you they try to register for a GCP account.
Not true. If you manage to host your business on AWS without their permission, police do show up.
The problem is the Internet has backbones. (Score:2)
Nobody seemed to think this was a problem at the time. It just worked. It scaled great. Gradually, in hindsight, it becomes clear just what we've lost.
But never fear. TCP/IP is still designed to route around this sort of thing. What we need now is a fundamentalist movement calling for a literal interpretation of the RFCs. Oh, and some clever electronics. And likely a replacement for DNS.
And a lot o
Re: The problem is the Internet has backbones. (Score:2)
TCP/IP was designed for monopolized networks, and routing works with w with implicit understanding that it is only a temporary failure. If it were designed from ground up for today's world it would be infinitely more secure and centralized then it already is.
Re: (Score:1)
Or why doesn't twitter just create their own country instead? That would be easier.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an easy one: Because the Nigerian government wouldn't let them.
The Nigerians, all told, are probably better off without that kind of addictive substance anyway. Here's hoping Twitter exits India, and Florida too, whose governments are all trying to dictate their content policies.
Re: Lol (Score:2)
It's Nigeria's internet backbone, they can ban whomever they want from it.
If Twitter got banned then why doesn't Twitter just create their own internet backbone that allows this kind of behaviour?
Not sure who you're imagining disputes that, or why you think it's funny. It doesn't matter if Nigeria had one backbone or a thousand redundant connections to the rest of the internet if its government has authority to regulate them, it can, just like the US government can regulate Twitter if it wanted to. Or anything else it wants to on the US side of the Internet if it had the authority to do so. Authority which would come from within, not anywhere else.
If you don't like Twitter don't use it or make yo
I look forward to the day (Score:2)
when we Patriotic Americans(TM) can do the same here!
As long as they don't block emails (Score:4, Funny)
I'm still waiting for payment confirmation on my account from Adewale Ndongo, a former Nigerian prince whom I helped unlock his inheritance. I sent him 0.00001 bitcoins, which is roughly equivalent to 120 trillion dollars, and he promised to repay me back 500 billion Nigerian pounds, which is roughly equivalent to $1.50. In terms of play money, I'm totally winning! But only if email goes through.
Let the cognitive dissonance begin. (Score:2)
Nigeria Suspends Twitter Indefinitely After President's Tweet is Deleted
So... who's guilty of Cancel Culture? Twitter or Nigeria? ;)
Re: Let the cognitive dissonance begin. (Score:2)
Twitter has pretty clear guidelines of bannable behaviors. One person broke the rules and got banned for doing so.
On the other hand, the weak president was so butt-hurt he decided if he can't use Twitter, no one in his country can.
Neither of these is really cancel culture.
Rules enforcement isn't cancel culture. Cancel culture is when one group's rules spill over into other arenas.
Unilateral de-platforming isn't really cancel culture either. Cancel culture is about leveraging social media and other multiplie
Re: Let the cognitive dissonance begin. (Score:2)
The president was elected. Twitter is a propaganda tool. It can't be clearer. The only butthurt is in people defending twitter on twitter lol.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Twitter's guidelines aren't remotely clear, people are routinely and constantly threatened or banned for things that don't remotely fall afoul of what few things aren't vaguely and easily misinterpreted or weaponized. On top of that it's absolutely blatant that twitter's rules are utterly corrupt and hypocritical, they don't even pretend anymore that blue checks are overwhelmingly used for political endorsement and grant exemptions from those rules.
That's why Reza Aslan can publicly call for violence agains
I'll bet Dorsey caves (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
I've read the tweet in TFS a bunch of times, and I still don't understand Twitter's objection. What's the "abusive behavior"? It sounds like the president promised to bring some criminals to justice. Typical law-and-order political rhetoric.
I think Twitter would be better off if they went back to ignoring what people post.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancel me? (Score:2)
Waaaah! (Score:1)
Muhammadu Buhari: *signs up for Twitter and agrees to their ToS which includes what type of language they will allow - regardless of who you are and what country you're from*
Muhammadu Buhari: *makes post that violates the ToS*
Twitter: *deletes post and does not ban entire account*
Alhaji Lai Mohammed: "How dare Twitter do exactly what they said they would do when we agreed to it?!" *bans Twitter*
I fucking hate Twitter and even the concept of it. But what I do understand is ToS. You don't get to agree to the
Why not the middle east? (Score:1)
Context (Score:4, Insightful)
Bear in mind that Nigeria is currently undergoing a good bit of domestic strife, which is briefly mentioned in the article. Some of the government police units there have taken to firing on protesters. Twitter seems to be choosing sides here by considering President Buhari's tweet to be a thinly-veiled threat for more violence against protesters.
If Dorsey et al actually believed that Buhari's tactics were acceptable given the circumstances, it's likely that they never would have cited a policy violation or deleted his tweet. They should not be surprised that Buhari has reacted accordingly.
Twitter is this close to getting blocked in their (Score:1)
After Dorsey met the princeling of the Nehru tribe who masquerade as âoeGandhis,â Twitterâ(TM)s campaign against the government of India picked up steam.
The GoI has encouraged alternatives to Twitter, but hasnâ(TM)t yet pulled the plug. Just a matter of time.
Aside: the political family known as Gandhis arenâ(TM)t any relation to the old fellow you have in mind. Indira Nehru wanted to marry a bloke named Feroze Jehangir Ghandy and her father, Jawahar Lal Nehru only agreed to the marr