#TwitterBlackout sparks debate over "good" social media censorship

This week, Twitter announced that it now has the ability to censor content on a country-by-country basis.

This means that, when a government requests a tweet or an account be removed, Twitter can make the content disappear just for users in that country instead of blocking it for everyone around the world.

On its company blog, Twitter states:

We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.

Twitter's announcement of country-specific censorship has sparked outrage among many Twitter users. A one-day boycott of the social-media service, or #TwitterBlackout, was called for today (January 28).

Reporters Without Borders has even written to Twitter executive chair Jack Dorsey, expressing "deep concern" about the company's "geolocated censorship" policy.

The letter from Reporters Without Borders director Olivier Basille reads:

We urge you to reverse this decision, which restricts freedom of expression and runs counter to the movements opposed to censorship that have been linked to the Arab Spring, in which Twitter served as a sounding board. By finally choosing to align itself with the censors, Twitter is depriving cyberdissidents in repressive countries of a crucial tool for information and organization.

We are very disturbed by this decision, which is nothing other than local level censorship carried out in cooperation with local authorities and in accordance with local legislation, which often violates international free speech standards. Twitter’s position that freedom of expression is interpreted differently from country to country is inacceptable. This fundamental principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In a widely tweeted opinion piece, however, Mashable writer Josh Catone says #TwitterBlackout supporters have got it all wrong. He claims the new policy is "actually good for activists".

Catone writes:

But wouldn’t it be better for activists if Twitter just refused to comply with requests from oppressive regimes? Actually, no.

If a government asks Twitter to remove an offending tweet, the company essentially has two options: Comply and block that single tweet or user in that country (while still allowing the rest of the world to see), or refuse and risk the government itself blocking Twitter for everyone in that country. So which seems better for activists? I’ll pick the former any day — it still allows activists to speak to the world at large and draw attention to their treatment.

So, the question for each Twitter user could be: do you want Twitter to play a direct role in censorship? If the answer is no, I suppose you'll have to wait until tomorrow to tweet about it.

You can follow Stephen Hui on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.