Twitter's Throttling Of “What is a Woman?” Was Not Censorship

Censorship On Social Media Depends On How Platforms Throttle, Not What They Throttle

Last month, Twitter “throttled”—did not censor—a controversial documentary by Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire, but chances are it has censored you.

---

“Black Victim To Black Victor” Book by Adam B. Coleman. Rated 4 1/2 Stars on Amazon!

“Adam B. Coleman puts his arm around the people he has lived amongst his whole life, providing them with honest and incredibly personal insight.”

“Wow. I had no idea when I started to read this book, how important the message is for every single one of us.”

Wrong Speak Publishing’s First Book! Purchase Now from WSP’s Store or Amazon!

---

Netizens are right to be concerned about what social media sites throttle. But contrary to popular belief, you do not see the same thing everyone else sees. In order to escape insights from users, platforms stopped informing less-followed accounts of throttling.

In this post, “throttled” refers to all forms of content moderation including removals and demotions.

This was unambiguously censorship. To make matters worse, civil society groups who you might expect to call out such behavior instead provide exceptions for it through tough-sounding “principles.”

Secretive throttling satisfies the camps that want to censor our content, but it leaves us in the dark. As a result, we waste time arguing over what platforms throttle rather than how they throttle.

A conversation: Censorship on Twitter?

Despite an earlier agreement between Twitter and The Daily Wire, the platform at first limited, then later restored users’ ability to share the film, “What is a Woman?”

The following day, Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, joined a Spaces conversation to discuss censorship and free speech online. Dillon mentioned his recent interview with Elon Musk in which Musk said “massive amounts of secret suppression” occur elsewhere.

Participants on the call could not agree upon what kinds of content should have free rein. None argued in favor of a right to post spam, copyrighted materials, or incitement to violence.

Here is how The Daily Wire’s tweet appeared to the public shortly after they posted it:

They soon discovered the throttling and the gray “Visibility limited” box almost certainly appeared for their account. Consider this actionable definition of censorship:

The most pernicious censorship on social media occurs when the author of a throttled post does not know someone took action against their content

Twitter may also quietly hide replies behind an “offensive content” button.

The throttling we see masks the censorship we do not. Nearly every social media user has probably written a secretly throttled comment at some point. Over 50% of Reddit users may have no idea that their accounts reveal recently removed comments.

Some argue these are monopolies who control our public square, and that everything they throttle matters. Dillon made this point when he said, “Private companies have to honor the commitment that they make to users on the platform.” Twitter’s Hateful Conduct policy states,

Twitter’s mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers.

“An argument could be made that they're defrauding you,” Dillon added.

Others argue in favor of secretive throttling. I respond to such propositions with three points:

• When platforms hide throttling from authors, the practice is far more widespread.

• Prioritizing your own content helps everyone communicate better.

• There is another way. Talk about it.

When platforms hide throttling from authors, the practice is far more widespread

Since neither the author nor the public is aware when secretive throttling occurs, it happens all the time.

With transparent throttling, people can learn the rules, dispute a rule, or move to other forums. Secretive throttling is like purgatory. There is no learning and no movement.

Social media is our new public square, and millions of posts may be secretly throttled per day. That leads to pockets of tyranny that converge to form larger ones.

Warnings that tyranny could emerge from within society came from 19th-century philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote of “tyranny of the majority.” He argued the “germ of tyranny” starts small.

Prioritizing your own content helps everyone communicate better

Naturally, people want to know what social media sites throttle. Yet they falsely assume they can discover this. As Shireen Mitchell, founder of Stop Online Violence Against Women, put it, “There are plenty of voices that haven't been heard before. You all are not hearing them because they have been soft-banned or kept quiet.”

Our understanding of online censorship relies upon people who have both a big following and dare to say something unpopular. But there are far too few of those to represent all viewpoints.

Further compounding the issue, a platform may choose not to throttle someone with a high profile. Or it may intentionally throttle their content in order to amplify it, as some speculated about the “censorship” of Walsh’s film.

One thing is certain. Securing the integrity of our own content leads to better conversations, and getting distracted by other throttling is unhelpful.

There is another way. Talk about it.

You might say that’s impossible. Social media platforms are monopolies and they are doing this secretly. Surely we need the government to step in.

But that would be a mistake. Freedom of speech is a protection from the government, not something they provide. We broke the internet, and we can fix it.

In 2018 I began building Reveddit, a site that shows users their secretly removed Reddit comments. Its reception has reaffirmed my belief that applying free speech principles online improves conversations. When people talk about secretive throttling, communities change for the better.

On the Spaces call, the following exchange occurred:

• Journalist Brian Krassenstein said shadow banning is “the biggest issue.”

• User Brick_Suit responded, “Yeah I agree I just don't think they've had time to implement that yet. I don't expect them to have that now in this time frame, but I'd like to see them make progress on that as time goes on.”

• Krassenstein agreed, “Yeah that’s fair.”

If people give excuses, don’t be a pushover. It is never appropriate to misinform the author of a throttled post. I am prepared to make the case against secretive throttling with anyone at any time, in any place, and so can you.