Twitter’s new policy banning photographs and videos of private citizens posted without their consent is likely to be abused by powerful users to remove content they don’t like and create confusion regarding Twitter’s censorship rules.
Twitter’s new private information policy, which it updated Tuesday, provides for the removal of content if a private citizen or their authorized representative wants a photo or video taken down.
Conservatives say the new rule could be taken advantage of by powerful organizations, groups, and individuals who can claim to be an “authorized representative” of a private citizen in order to try and censor content they don’t like.
“This rule is very bad because it leaves Twitter open to being trolled by ideological groups that want content they don’t like taken down,” said Dan Gainor, vice president at the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog that tracks censorship on Big Tech platforms.
“Is everyone in America supposed to carry around liability release forms now?” Gainor said.
JACK DORSEY JOINS THE FUN AS FACEBOOK MOCKED RELENTLESSLY FOR META NAME CHANGE
The social media giant, which has over 300 million active monthly users, already bans posting, or threatening to post, people’s private information, such as their phone numbers, addresses, and IDs.
The new privacy policy is focused on trying to prevent a person’s privacy from being violated in the form of having others post harmful photos or videos of them.
“If the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior,” Twitter said in a press release on Tuesday.
The new policy is not applicable to content that is newsworthy, has public interest value, or features public figures or individuals. This includes images or videos of large crowds, protests, sporting events, or public spaces.
Tech scholars who study the Big Tech platforms say that, although Twitter’s intention is to empower users, the new policy won’t address the problems it’s trying to fix.
“In some ways, it’s a huge step forward for privacy policy. It shows Twitter very much taking the lead on something not mandated, but it’s approach to doing so is flawed,” said Emerson Brooking, who studies digital platforms and misinformation at the Atlantic Council, a centrist think tank.
Brooking said that Twitter is trying to push the American social media companies and users to follow a more European model in terms of privacy, one that is idealistic but also could curtail free speech due to how broadly the policy has been crafted.
“They’re opening the door to any internet figure saying their likeness is being used incorrectly,” Brooking said.
“This is a rare policy change where the dislike sees no partisan divide. Across the political spectrum, people will have the same complaint and concern, which is that free speech is being constrained,” he said.
Brooking added that Twitter’s ecosystem as a collaborative space for investigative journalism, crowd-sourced information during a crisis, and truth-seeking would come under threat under the new policy.
Conservative journalists and activists are worried about how the new policy could affect their work.
“To get consent from the people you’re reporting on is the opposite of what journalism is. This is an attack on journalism itself,” conservative activist and Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe told the Washington Examiner.
“People who are committing malfeasance and doing harmful things don’t have the right to privacy. This rule is an assault on the First Amendment,” O’Keefe added.
Republicans are worried about the new rule being used to “cancel” conservatives.
“Remember when Twitter said they were the free speech wing of the free speech party?” Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio countered to the Washington Examiner when asked about Twitter’s new policy.
“Well, Twitter continues to reveal itself as actually being the censorship wing of the speech suppression party,” Jordan said.
Those who represent tech companies such as Twitter say the company should be given the benefit of the doubt to implement the new policy before it is judged.
“Twitter is merely responding to market concerns of user privacy, but the proof will be in the pudding — in its application, how the policy is actually implemented,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice, an advocacy group that represents tech companies, including Twitter and Facebook.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“For conservatives, the frustration with this policy is understandable, but we need to understand the principle that Twitter is a private business that knows what’s best for its users,” said Szabo.
