Twitter’s Facebook Black Interpretation of American “Freedom of Speech”

US social media Twitter and Facebook Monday announced that they have blocked a number of accounts on their platforms. The reason they give is that these accounts spread false information about Hong Kong demonstrations and they are dominated by Chinese officials.

Twitter also blocked 936 accounts at this time. It gave an example of spreading fake information. The blocked account shared photos of Hong Kong demonstrators who attacked the Legislative Council and wrote: “The demonstrators of these impact Legislative Councils are Are you crazy or are they being instructed by the bad guys? This is a completely violent act, and Hong Kong does not need such a radical person. Please get out of Hong Kong right away!”

One of the blocked accounts listed in Facebook contains a placard that criticizes Hong Kong demonstrators who are afraid to show their faces.

It is worth asking whether, in these two examples, which information is false? They are clearly fierce comments on the facts that have occurred, and such fierce emotions abound on the Internet. Why do they need to be given a special penalty?

The United States claims to be a country with free speech, and in this case, statements that do not violate the law should be protected. Which of the above two laws violates the US law? They are only in opposition to Hong Kong demonstrators in terms of value orientation. Does Twitter and Facebook’s behavior mean that they only protect the fierce rhetoric that supports the demonstration, but deprive the demonstrators of their right to speak?

Each country has its own laws and regulations governing speech, and people should enjoy the same rights under the same laws and regulations. The US public opinion field gives the outside world a relatively loose impression, but the latest performance of Twitter Facebook shows that this kind of easing is directed, not universal, and American social networking sites can openly discriminate against “politically incorrect” remarks. Until they are given a muffling treatment.

In particular, it is worth noting that Twitter’s apparently contrary to US law has not caused a rebound in mainstream American public opinion. We can’t see anyone in the mainstream American public opinion condemning Twitter’s Facebook in the first place. The attitude of the US media on this matter is determined by their political position, not from their loyalty to American law.

In other words, the United States is first and foremost a highly politicized country, rather than what they claim to be a true “rule of law.” Political attitudes are enough to penetrate the barriers of American law and rules. This is true in the context of the “freedom of speech” that American society is arrogant about and proud of.

Twitter’s Facebook claims that the blocked accounts were controlled by the Chinese government, but they did not give the “reliable evidence” they claimed. Moreover, because China is a big government, private public opinion institutions are inextricably linked with the government, but a large number of media also have a strong market orientation. From the perspective of traditional concepts, it is sometimes difficult to define what some vocalists have with the government. Whether they voice “government behavior” or “civil behavior.”

The main US social media blocked a number of accounts and accused them of being manipulated by the Chinese government. This is at least very rude. In our opinion, Twitter and Facebook have a strong suspicion of arguing the United States and Western public opinion. This is their loyalty to express their politicalism in the context of the United States and the West. Absurd, it is very clear that this is not a rule-based management, but a naked ideological action.

Look at the real lies on the Twitter Facebook for the Chinese government and Chinese institutions, and even individuals. It is said that after the Global Times reporter Fu Guohao was illegally imprisoned and beaten at the Hong Kong airport, some people spread the rumors that he was “the CCP’s national security personnel”. Did Twitter and other social media manage it? On Twitter, there are still more than one fake account that pretends to be the head of the Global Times, making up the fake tweets of the person in charge, and is Twitter cleaning them up?

To be honest, we understand to a certain extent that Twitter Facebook needs to be “named” to the American society in which they live. But why do American and Western societies create and encourage such “names”, and how can Western political and opinion elites be able to create “political correctness” compulsion while not blushing about their “freedom of speech”? It is worthwhile to break open and talk about it.