Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday July 15 2019, @02:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the who-you-talking-to dept.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/07/12/top-assange-defense-account-deleted-by-twitter/

One of the biggest Twitter accounts dedicated to circulating information and advocacy for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, @Unity4J, has been completely removed from the site. The operators of the account report that they have been given no reason for its removal by Twitter staff, and have received no response to their appeals.

Any Assange supporter active on Twitter will be familiar with the Unity4J account, which originated to help boost the wildly successful Unity4J online vigils in which well-known Assange defenders would appear to speak out against his persecution. As of this writing, the account has been gone for a day and a half.

"About 8:45am CST on Thursday July 11, one of our Unity4J Twitter team members went to retweet on the account and noticed that the account was no longer accessible," reports pro-Assange activist Christy Dopf, one of the operators of the account. "When each of us also attempted to access the account we all received the same message 'Account Suspended'. Twitter did not send us a reason or violation for the suspension. So an appeal was submitted. We did receive correspondence that Twitter got our request and the case is currently open. Unfortunately we do not have a timeline on how long this could take."

[Ed. note: The linked story variously uses "suspended", "removed", and "deleted"; seemingly interchangeably. When attempting to load "https://twitter.com/Unity4J the response was:

Account suspended

This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.

so it appears that there may be hope for the account to be unsuspended; time will tell. --martyb]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15 2019, @02:56PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15 2019, @02:56PM (#867199)

    Imagine a simple unprobable situation: USA Government does not stick their fingers to business.
    What will change?
    Government surveillance and censorship will be smaller.
    What will not change?
    Agenda-related surveillance and censorship will not change and still will be enforced. It may be even larger due to lack of regulations.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16 2019, @09:05AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 16 2019, @09:05AM (#867469) Journal

    Agenda-related surveillance and censorship will not change and still will be enforced. It may be even larger due to lack of regulations.

    So what? All democracies are structured around division of power. There are many agendas while there aren't many governments. Thus, there is a considerable division of power in your latter scenario.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 16 2019, @02:06PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 16 2019, @02:06PM (#867554)

      No! There is only one agenda, with one objective: To maximize profit.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16 2019, @02:22PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 16 2019, @02:22PM (#867562) Journal
        Sorry, not true. Even if there is one goal, there are many parties competing for that goal.
        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 16 2019, @05:48PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 16 2019, @05:48PM (#867629)

          You have said what the AC says enough, "their only responsibility is to profit for shareholders!"

          You just can't accept that your world view is broken eh?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17 2019, @09:08AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 17 2019, @09:08AM (#867920) Journal

            You have said what the AC says enough, "their only responsibility is to profit for shareholders!"

            Notice the use of the word "if" in my earlier post - I have not said what you claim I said. And that "if" was used because whether it is completely irrelevant whether the many "theirs" out there have similar motives or not - because there are so many more such parties, they will conflict with each other far more often on that basic profit motive.

            Once again, there's far more shareholders and agendas than there are top level governments. It's a vast dilution of power and control - something that every working democracy does. So why again is it bad when we do it here? Why again are we supposed to lose our shit because there are private parties with a bit of power, which you can sue?

            I find it remarkable just how ignorant the angst over business power is. It will even advocate causing considerable harm to our democracies in order to tilt at that windmill.