Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Removes Account Of Human Rights Activist (2018)
from the perspective dept
Summary: Manzoor Ahmed Pashteen is a human rights activist in Pakistan, calling attention to unfair treatment of the Pashtun ethnic group, of which he is a member. In 2018, days after he led a rally in support of the Pashtun people in front of the Mochi Gate in Lahore, his Twitter account was suspended.
A number of human rights activists and other supporters of Pashteen quickly began to use Twitter to ask the company, and CEO Jack Dorsey, why Pashteen’s account was suspended.
Decisions to be made by Twitter:
- How do you distinguish human rights activists organizing protests from users trying to foment violence?
- How do you weigh reports from governments against activists who criticize the governments making the reports?
- How responsive should you be to users calling out suspensions they feel were unfair or mistaken?
- Governments that are criticized by activists often accuse those activists of being “terrorists” or trying to foment violence. Is it possible to have a policy that distinguishes different types of protests and protest movements?
- Can shutting down the accounts of activists harm important causes?
At the time of this case study, it appears he is still facing those charges, though his Twitter account remains active with efforts to organize more protests and get the Pashtun people to protest government actions that have harmed them.
Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil rights, content moderation, human rights, manzoor ahmed pashteen, pakistan, pashtun
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It’s Friday. Go do something constructive instead of posting shit that no one cares about. Get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a content moderation case study. They post these twice a week, and I find them to be great. So I disagree that "no one cares" about this. I think the case studies are great.
What's worse, having someone post something on a website that is available to you for free that you disagree with, or you feeling so upset about it you need to scream at people for them doing so?
Maybe take a look in the mirror and think about what brought you to this point in your life that you feel that the proper thing to do when you see an article you don't care about is to yell at the site that provided it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"They post these twice a week"
What's funnier is that when you have regularly scheduled posts on a blog, it's possible to write them weeks or months in advance, and then have them automatically scheduled to post in the future. It's actually good practice to do this for posts that aren't dependant on current news or events (such as the case study posts), since the backlog frees you up in case of breaking news interfering with your scheduled posts.
In other words - as far as this chucklehead knows, the people he's whining about working for a living on a Friday might have already turned in for the weekend before the post was made public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…the AC said to a mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AC's self-reflection level: Vampire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey antidirt, I didn't think they took you off the no-fly list following your trip to Capitol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It’s Friday. Go do something constructive"
You see, people have these things called jobs, where they do constructive things for money, which then allows them to fund whatever lifestyle they wish to live when not at work. Quite often these jobs have you working from Monday to Friday, leaving weekends clear for leisure and family time.
You should try getting one at some point, it really frees you up from pathetic choices like using your free time to whine about what other people are doing, because your life is otherwise so empty.
"no one cares"
Yet, here you are acting like someone who really cares. Weird, that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Speaking of jobs, who is on this thinktank's payroll?
Does it publish full financial statements?
How much money does it receive a year, and from who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The irony, it burns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It’s Friday. Go do something constructive instead of posting shit that no one cares about. Get a life."
Now, on the face of it, that was a stupid comment by a seemingly stupid commenter. Techdirt, for once wasn't fellating Big Tech and advocating censorship. I read it and thought "well, what was the point of saying that?"
But then I saw a bunch of Masnickers get all upset and teary-eyed that some anon had insulted the fee-fees of their hero with a throwaway, meaningless comment. Stone's and Toom's and Paul's and TechFlaw's and Rocky's boyfriends will be snuggling them to sleep tonight and drying their tears.
Now I think this guy is one of the most brilliant commenters on Techdirt. Sir, please, whoever you are, more of this!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you revel in the misery of others — that you delight in cruelty — says more about you than any of us would ever need to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fellating, my ass. I really hope you don't actually think you won the argument, asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, friend of Dorothy - your 'ass' is the sodomy (passive role) you engage in. Fellating is the oral one - the groveling sexual favors you Masnickers do for Wall Street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be rather familiar with gay slang, Hamilton. Now why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you would be too stupid to grasp the concept of a comma in the right place. No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing the reason it was removed because it wasn't child pornography and thus violates Twitter's guidelines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt are capitalists when it suits them: “It’s their company, they can remove who they want!” And individualists when it suits them: “How dare they ban someone? We need to stop these evil capitalists!” There’s not an opinion site more schizophrenic than this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having the right to do a thing doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, exactly Stone... you're starting to get it!
Now, continue with that line of reasoning... why do Techdirt and you continue to grovel to Big Tech when they repeatedly and consistently do the wrong thing??
Nobody has argued that the big corporations don't currently have the right to ban people for their political viewpoints. But it's wrong to do. And they keep doing it. They keep doing it, and you and the Masnickers keep supporting it.
Which is why, eventually, they'll get stripped of their power to do so.
230 is a good thing. But Big Tech can't help themselves but go full Stasi on anyone to the right of Saul Alinsky. Eventually Americans will get sick of it, and 230 will be taken away.
When that happens, don't start whining about intersectionality and hate speech and neon-nazis. When 230 is gone, Big Tech will have brought it upon themselves .
Proving once again the trueism: Leftists are why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody has argued that the big corporations don't currently have the right to ban people for their political viewpoints
Uhhh, many people argued and continue to argue that constantly. If the number of people claiming that has gone down, it's precisely because of aggressive ongoing coverage of how wrong they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts only true of Parler.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, that's not a truism.
But you have actually displayed one truism: Assholes, just like bigots, racists, Nazis and other knuckle-draggers, are why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"neon-nazis"
Well, that would be more interesting than the crowd you defend, who are invariably as dull as they are dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don’t lie to me.
Yes or no: Is it wrong for corporations to ban any offensive or disturbing speech so long as it could be considered a “political viewpoint” (e.g., the promotion of “conversion ‘therapy’ ”)?
Yes, we do. Because it is their right. And that applies to both “sides” equally. Make Twitter adhere to “neutrality” in exchange for 230 protections and you’ll make Parler do the same. (Yes or no: Would you exempt Parler from 230 “neutrality” because you share its political bias?)
You’re arguing otherwise, but go off, I guess.
Assume I believe that statement is true.
So what?
And when Parler, Gab, and other conservative-friendly shitpits are gone because they can’t afford to block the lawsuits that 230 protected them from, don’t start whining about censorship and anti-conservative bias and fully automated luxury gay space communism. Opponents of 230 — like you — will have brought that fate upon those services.
Last I checked, “leftists” didn’t storm the citadel of American democracy in an attempt to kill lawmakers and prevent the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. Nor did “leftists” do everything possible to hold up COVID relief. And “leftists” sure as shit didn’t throw out the pandemic playbook left by the Obama administration, ignore COVID-19 until it was too large to ignore, and allowed hundreds of thousands of people to die because “blue states” might have gotten the same kind of COVID aid that “red states” would’ve.
Assholes are why we can’t have nice things. That the U.S. is filled with assholes who believe in modern American conservatism (the ethos of which is “make the libs cry, no matter the cost”) and take its “teachings” to their proper logical endgame is…well, it’s an indictment of the U.S. education system, for starters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When some federal nannies we used to call congressmen had to endure some broken glass", Americans think it's kind of amusing - seeing as those congressmen spent all of 2020 cheering as mobs of savages went on looting, rape, murder, and arson sprees about an overdosed felon.
But you fruits hyperventilate and parrot your favorite hysterical congressgirl drama queen womyn of colours "dey twied to muwder meeee!!!", proving you're just obedient Organization Men.
Techdirter priorities:
When some manicured Ivy League yuppie in a gray flannel suit gives you Masnickers your marching orders, you move out smartly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"had to endure some broken glass"
5 people died in the insurrection attempt, so slightly more than broken glass, with a mob who explicitly announced their intention to murder any congressperson they encountered.
"those congressmen spent all of 2020 cheering"
Your hallucinations are not documented reality. But, given that Mike Pence was one of the main intended targets of the mob - do you have evidence of him doing such a thing? That would be news if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hallucinating" Congress support for BLM savagery....
Congresswomyn Ayanna Soyini Pressley, D-MA: "You know, there need to be unrest in the street".
Senatoress Kamala Devi Harris, D-CA: "Help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota".
Senator Bernard Sanders, D-VT: "People are angry. I am angry. And people have a right to be angry."
CongressBIPOC Maxine M. Water, D-CA: "You get out and you create a crowd." ... "Absolutely harass them." ... "You think we rallyin' now? You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Congressgirl Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY: "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable." ... "To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point."
Senatbrahmin Kamala Harris: "But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop." ... "And they should not, and we should not."
Congressgranny Nancy Tricia Pelosi, D-CA: "I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country." ... "Waiter? More lunch wine, please."
Paul, I did your homework for you. Okay, okay, - as a joke - the last one was made up (but you know she says it several times per month.)
I'm sure I could find a lot more, but let's be honest - you're going to pretend all the above was in support of peaceful protests ... not those white supramacizers that snuck into BLM in blackface and raped, robbed, looted, burned, murdered, and destroyed throughout 2020. To make BLM look like violent, senseless, homicidal savages instead of the calm, reasoned, Rhodes Scholars, astronauts, neurosurgeons, and philosophers they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m deleting all your altered titles because you have a serious problem with women/people of color/non-Christians and I’m not playing that game.
Unrest in the street means simply “unrest”. It doesn’t mean “violence”. And a protest — “unrest” — is a way to make leaders take notice that something is wrong within a community. When peaceful politics fails, “unrest” is a solid follow-up. And when “unrest” turns to “riot”, it becomes “the language of the unheard” — a loud scream aimed at leaders that something needs to change.
Posting bail for people arrested over peaceful protests isn’t a bad thing unless you think people should be arrested for peacefully protesting.
Yes or no: Do you believe people angry about the murders of people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have no right to feel angry about that?
Other than the “harass” comment, I don’t see anything troubling there. And even the “harass” comment doesn’t advocate for violence.
She’s right, you know.
It’s almost as if protesting police brutality and calling for reforms in policing should be something more than a one-time thing every few years. Imagine that~.
Same.
Until you can prove otherwise? Yes, I can and will say those statements were all in support of peaceful protests. Now these statements are all in favor of violence:
[in re: protesters] “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent.” (23 October 2015)
[in re: a Black Lives Matter protester] “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” (21 November 2015)
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” (23 January 2016)
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise.” (1 February 2016)
[in re: a protester] “There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches. We’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.” (23 February 2016)
“They said to me, ‘What do you think of waterboarding?’ I said I think it’s great, but we don’t go far enough. It’s true. We don’t go far enough. We don’t go far enough.” (23 February 2016)
“We have some protesters who are bad dudes, they have done bad things. They are swinging, they are really dangerous … And if they’ve got to be taken out, to be honest, I mean, we have to run something.” (10 March 2016)
And that’s a sampling of what the now-former 45th president of the United States said from between the time he announced his campaign in 2015 to the 6th of January 2021. You can find more if you look, I promise. And not a one of those kinds of statements were in support of Black people, Black Lives Matter (the movement or the organization), or police reforms.
Also: We get it, you’re a racist piece of trash who thinks the “violent, senseless, homicidal savages” everyone else refers to as “Black people” should be “grateful” they’re even allowed to live in a police state. Go get in a circlejerk about the N-word on Stormfront already, goddamn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do tend to view looting, arson, murder, rape, and destruction as "violent". Yes.
I do tend to view large groups of people who do these things - mobs, if you will - as "homicidal savages". Yes.
I do tend to view mobs doing these things on behalf of a myth, a lie, something entirely untrue ('systemic racism' and 'police are death squads bent on killing totally innocent people of color for no reason / 'cause Trump said so / whatever it is today' and 'White supremacy' and 'White privilege' and etc etc) as "senseless". Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I repeat:
We get it, you’re a racist piece of trash who thinks the “violent, senseless, homicidal savages” everyone else refers to as “Black people” should be “grateful” they’re even allowed to live in a police state. Go get in a circlejerk about the N-word on Stormfront already, goddamn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I do tend to view looting, arson, murder, rape, and destruction as "violent". Yes."
"I do tend to view large groups of people who do these things - mobs, if you will - as "homicidal savages". Yes."
"I do tend to view mobs doing these things on behalf of a myth, a lie, something entirely untrue ... as "senseless".
A myth like Trump losing the election? A lie like there being widespread election fraud that just couldn't be proven in 60 court cases for reasons? Something entirely untrue like there being a cabal of baby eating elites behind every ill in the world who Q promises will be defeated by Trumps' inevitable re-election?
Cool, so you agree that the insurrectionists inspired by those lies and whipped up into a frenzy where they stormed the capitol, destroying, and stealing property, murdering and exclaiming the desire to have done more are senseless murderous savages, and should be rounded up and prosecuted to the limits of the law?
Glad to have you on our side!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Hallucinating" Congress support for BLM savagery....
Weird, you didn't give the requested quotes from Mike Pence I asked for, even though he was one of the main stated targets. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Hallucinating" Congress support for BLM savagery....
Paul, be honest ... did you not ... did you not know Pence was Vice President, and not a member of congress, in 2020?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Hallucinating" Congress support for BLM savagery...
I did, but I know your predilection for completely lying about and distorting out of context people who you disagree with politically (as you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt above). So, I wondered how you would spin these claims into Pence deserving what he was threatened with as well, since he was one of the stated targets of the mob.
I know you won't answer honestly, I just find it a better use of my words here than trying to tell you how you're being wilfully dishonest by, for example, trying to paint Kamala Harris' request for bail assistance for people who were often not involved in violence is tantamount to gleeful support of violence.
I know you're desperately lying at this point, I just wanted to poke for an answer as to why you think Mike Pence deserved calls for his death from your friends on that day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hallucinating" Congress support for BLM savager
TG;DR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna know how I know you’re someone who thinks all Black people are subhuman garbage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh no he diiiin't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I just read about how some of your seditious cult members who stormed the capital looking to murder congressional members in their Stop The Steal Temper Tantrum ....... did not even vote in the 2020 election. I'm not quite sure whether this is funny or sad.
"Americans think it's kind of amusing "
Yes, many of us are quite pleased to see those who chanted Lock Her Up are now facing the real possibility of jail time.
Law 'n Order bitches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You Masnickers can't decide:
Was it "seditious" domestic terrorist colonist oppressor evil bad blue collar White people neon-nazi deaths quads determined to "murder" congresswymyn in an "insurrection"?
Or was it a "temper tantrum"?
It's one or the other, so choose which one you're going with and stick with it.
It'd also be good if you guys could decide if resisting law enforcement is a good thing or a bad thing. Because in 2020, it was good and noble and ACAB. Suddenly in 2021 it's bad and deserves the instant death penalty (if done by unarmed White mother).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. (Also: They were after Mike Pence, so insulting “wymyn” twice over with that spelling of “women” is both misogyny and historical revisionism.)
Yes. The insurrectionists were trying to overthrow American democracy as part of a months-long sustained temper tantrum. That the tantrum was thrown by the now-former 45th president is a key part of the insurrection.
Also, I see where you’re trying to go with this comment, even if you don’t make the leap. The difference between the George Floyd protests and the insurrection is simple: One was about protesting murder and the other was about undermining democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see. So I had it wrong. I apologize. It has nothing to do with year.
On the surface it seems like resisting authority in 2020 was good and in 2021 resisting authority is bad.
But now you're clarifying: Black people resisting authority = good and noble. White people resisting authority = evil and deserves the death penalty.
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The protests in 2020 were about murders, systemic racism, and police reform. The insurrection last month was about American democracy and the application thereof. Try and figure out why one is more acceptable than the other without being a racist troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They were after Mike Pence."
I see. So Milquetoast Mikey was the target?
So... Mz. Cortez-Ocasio was just being a hysterical drama queen with her "They tried to murrdddeerrrr meeee!"
If that's your new position, Stone, I have to congratulate you on the very first thing we can agree on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pence was a target, yes. So was Pelosi. And given the hateboners on display that day, I’d wager that “The Squad” would’ve been a wonderful find for the same group of murderous thugs who were chanting “hang Mike Pence”, carried zip ties into the chambers of Congress, and did nothing as one of their own beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"did nothing as one of their own beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher."
Don't forget being beaten with a "Blue Lives Matter" flag as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Calm down .. you do not need an aneurysm.
I find your desperation to be puzzling, but I do not really care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your boy Trump lost bigly, Hamilton. The sad attempt at a final power grab was icing on the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it turns out many of these anti-American shitwits didn't even bother voting in the election in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't understand the meaning of the word capitalist it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who runs this thinktank?
Who gets paychecks or other money from it?
How much does it take in a year and where does the money go?
Who are the donors and how much have they given?
Do they publish financial statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is Google?
What are links on an article?
Why are you so stupid and lazy that you refuse to use either to answer your own questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore the trolls
I for one appreciate these case studies. They're a great resource to demonstrate what Mike's been saying for ages about the impossibility of perfect content moderation.
I hope you're going to cover the recent hoo-ha around GameStop shares. Including Robinhood (and other platforms) stopping trades. As well as Google suspending reviews over so-called "review bombing"
Moderation, with a side of possible financial market manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]