Recently, Twitter users are using the platform to complain about, well, Twitter. The recent decision to adhere to the laws of nations around the world has resulted in its implementation of tweet censorship.

I thought that was an oxymoron, too.

The company now abides by the laws of nations that employ more restrictive freedom of speech practices than the United States. In each country that prohibits conversation about specific topics, Twitter will comply with that nation’s censorship practices by removing tweets. The poster and the tweet itself will be replaced by a message alerting that the tweet has been removed per censorship regulations. This alert is manifested in a visually offensive blob of gray with black text, dubbed around the web as the ‘gray box of shame.’

Tweets that fall under this category will be taken down after the original post, and the tweet will still be visible to the rest of the world. A protestor in a censorship-oriented country can tweet to his heart’s content about contraband conversation, but the existence of these tweets within the country in question will be short-lived.

For a social media outlet that has been used to kick-start revolutions, this move seems counter-constructive. Now, Twitter’s growing following is complaining about the company’s new stance on censorship.

David Lurie, a senior public relations major, thinks Twitter’s new approach is a necessary evil.

‘The decision by any government to censor dissent is unconscionable,’ he said. ‘But Twitter’s management team has its hands tied and is providing an outlet that would otherwise be impossible to maintain.’

So Twitter’s approach, a slap in the face of free speech, is a necessity. The company’s decision to censor tweets in certain nations didn’t come as a willful disfigurement of their communication gift to the world, but a desperate attempt to keep the service functional to its fullest extent.

If Twitter chose not to abide by the laws of certain countries, its service would be removed from that nation entirely. Like a light extinguished on a string of Christmas lights, it wouldn’t just hamper the communications of one country, but also harm worldwide communications. That one extinguished light would prevent information from leaving or entering that nation through Twitter. By dimming the light, Twitter can keep its functionality there.

Ben Tepfer, a senior television, radio and film major, finds that Twitter’s approach isn’t a forfeit of freedom of speech values, but rather an attempt to salvage them.

‘In part, I respect Twitter’s choice to respect other country’s laws — whether or not we, as Americans, think they are ‘fair,” he said. ‘Global citizens have always been resilient in the face of freedoms being oppressed. We may have to change the way we communicate, but our messages will stay the same.’

By adhering to censorship policies, Twitter will have to remove a controversial tweet in a certain country, but the message will still escape. That controversy will complete its task of tearing down borders by perpetuating the spread of information.

There are loopholes that individuals in censored nations can take advantage of to sidestep the new rules. These are vehicles for maintaining free speech in censored nations. Retweets of a censored tweet are not blocked. People in affected nations could very well change the location of where they are tweeting on their Twitter account.

With these loopholes, individuals can circumvent Twitter’s restrictions. It’s much better to have a candle in a black cave than to be left with no vision.

As Lurie said: ‘Some speech is better than no speech at all.’

Jessica Smith is a senior information management and technology and television, radio and film dual major. Her column appears every Tuesday. She can be reached at jlsmit22@syr.edu.

Published on February 6, 2012 at 12:00 pm