External pressures on social network websites to censor content or block access are most obvious in the repressive and authoritarian regimes, particularly those run by Communist parties or theocracy. X is blocked in Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran and several other countries. Pretty similar to Facebook.
Some dictators are more cunning. They do not block social networks, seemingly driven by the maxim “if you cannot beat them, join them,” have instead turned to social network websites to keep tabs on their political opponents.
For instance, several commentators have speculated that the now-dethroned Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s decision to open up Tunisia to X subsequent to his initial decision to block the site was made in the hopes of “using that openness to keep tabs on those who were using Facebook and Twitter to communicate and organize.” Similarly, the late Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chavez encouraged citizens to denounce enemies of his Bolivarian movement on X.
Some dictators are more cunning. They do not block social networks, seemingly driven by the maxim “if you cannot beat them, join them,” have instead turned to social network websites to keep tabs on their political opponents.
For instance, several commentators have speculated that the now-dethroned Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s decision to open up Tunisia to X subsequent to his initial decision to block the site was made in the hopes of “using that openness to keep tabs on those who were using Facebook and Twitter to communicate and organize.” Similarly, the late Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chavez encouraged citizens to denounce enemies of his Bolivarian movement on X.
Democracies have seen their fair share of such pressure as well. The United States has also witnessed governmental and political pressure to censor content on social network websites. In the wake of WikiLeaks’ release of classified United States diplomatic cables, the Department of Justice obtained a court order for X to turn over information about its WikiLeaks-related accounts, which, while not censorship itself, assumedly had a chilling effect on WikiLeaks-related tweets. X has also faced challenges from Senator Joe Lieberman, who led an effort to have X block pro-Taliban accounts and messages.
As we have seen, many countries and their rulers have tried to censor X for their own benefit. Maintaining the autonomy of the platform is necessary not only to prevent authoritarian rulers from continuing to spread their propaganda, but also to allow people to unite against them and fight for democracy.
For example, in June 2009, thousands of young Iranians took to the streets of Tehran with smartphones to express their outrage at the rigged election results. Western media began to speculate that the Internet was bringing democracy to Iran.
As we have seen, many countries and their rulers have tried to censor X for their own benefit. Maintaining the autonomy of the platform is necessary not only to prevent authoritarian rulers from continuing to spread their propaganda, but also to allow people to unite against them and fight for democracy.
For example, in June 2009, thousands of young Iranians took to the streets of Tehran with smartphones to express their outrage at the rigged election results. Western media began to speculate that the Internet was bringing democracy to Iran.
A Wall Street Journal editorial opined that “Iran’s Twitter-fueled ‘Green Revolution’…has used social media technology to do more to bring about regime change in the Islamic Republic than all the sanctions, threats, and wrangling in Geneva that have gone on for years.” In other words, X has improved not only democracy but also diplomacy.
Tim Rutten headlined his Los Angeles Times column: “Twitter: Tyranny’s New Nightmare.”
Tim Rutten headlined his Los Angeles Times column: “Twitter: Tyranny’s New Nightmare.”
Many journalists, political scientists, sociologists, and media scholars have assumed that the rise of the Internet and social media, and X in particular, has brought an end to authoritarian forms of government. We now know that their predictions in 2009 were overly optimistic. However, this does not overthrow the fact that X and other social networks have helped organise many peaceful anti-totalitarian protests: for example, in Belarus in 2020, or in Russia during the rally on Bolotnaya Square in 2012 and during the Navalny protests in 2021.
All the countries where censorhip on the interent takes place. A map by Daniel Trabun
“Twitter is the messenger of revolution,”
– Andrew Sullivan,
The Atlantic
The Atlantic
X as A Weapon Against COVID-19
During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about coronavirus vaccines began to spread on X. On January 29, economics related blog Zero Hedge suggested, without any evidence, that the strain of COVID-19 responsible for the outbreak was created by scientists from the Wuhan Institute. Zero Hedge, using doxxing, published the full contact information of the scientist allegedly responsible, including his name, photo, and phone number, inviting readers to "pay [the Chinese scientist] a visit if they want to know what really caused the coronavirus pandemic."
As a result, the platform's management decided to remove posts containing false statements, but starting November 23, 2022, X ended its policy of combating misleading information about COVID-19, despite the fact that many countries started to block X due to the spread of misinformation about the coronavirus and continue to block it for a variety of other reasons.
Tweeting on publications dealing with COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 worldwide
For example, countries such as China and Iran have blocked X, as well as other social media platforms. Both countries have seen a rapid rise in scientific output over the last two decades and their research, coupled with thousands of reported cases, on COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 has led them to a better understanding of the newest, fast moving virus. However, censorship on social media may have stifled research dissemination and more importantly avoided swift public scrutiny. This may adversely affect the global fight against the disease.
According to a study, more than 80% of the posts extracted from the WHO COVID-19 database were cited on X, which is almost seven times higher than previous studies analysing X data in the biomedical sciences (Haustein et al. 2014). Each COVID-19 post was cited on X an average of 425 times.
According to a study, more than 80% of the posts extracted from the WHO COVID-19 database were cited on X, which is almost seven times higher than previous studies analysing X data in the biomedical sciences (Haustein et al. 2014). Each COVID-19 post was cited on X an average of 425 times.
Thus, the lack of government censorship of X has helped fight the infection much more by disseminating scientific articles than it has misled people by the fakes.
Twitter, due to its speed, ease of dissemination of information and proximity to dialogue with many officials and government officials, is a very important outpost of democracy, and its repression by states is nothing more than an attempt to justify the existing anti-democratic regime.
While X proclaims its independence from government pressure on paper and while it needs to make more efforts in protecting user privacy and data security, another platform, Telegram, already has inherent advantages in privacy and security, which we will discuss in more detail.
Twitter, due to its speed, ease of dissemination of information and proximity to dialogue with many officials and government officials, is a very important outpost of democracy, and its repression by states is nothing more than an attempt to justify the existing anti-democratic regime.
While X proclaims its independence from government pressure on paper and while it needs to make more efforts in protecting user privacy and data security, another platform, Telegram, already has inherent advantages in privacy and security, which we will discuss in more detail.
