But there is an inherent problem in insisting that social networks, either legally or morally, are responsible for policing terrorism. Even if Twitter could build such a tool (and it’s really not clear that it could) and reliably whack every single terrorist mole that pops up on the network, it’s asking Twitter to decide who’s a terrorist.
What can Twitter do? It can collaborate with groups like CtrlSec and the government to more quickly identify and shut down accounts. And it can establish still better rules to make clear the kind of behavior that is and isn’t allowed on the network. But giving Twitter engineers the responsibility to decide who’s a terrorist is putting power where it doesn’t belong.
Source: fusion.net
It looks like Twitter is happy to help fund politicians — but it won’t help hold them to account.
Earlier this week, the company announced that users will be able to make donations to politicians and candidates directly through Twitter.
The move comes after Twitter hired three lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to better represent its political interests, and also plugged features designed to help integrate the social network deeper into the political process.
But less than a month ago, Twitter killed off one of the most useful political uses of its platform— holding politicians accountable for what they say.
Source: businessinsider.com.au
Access congratulates the U.S. Senate for approving the USA FREEDOM Act. The legislation will ban bulk collection under some U.S. surveillance powers, increase transparency, and improve accountability. While many more reforms to U.S. and other surveillance programs are needed, this is an important step toward comprehensive surveillance reform. Read our full statement here »