Why won’t Twitter ban Khamenei when it permanently suspended Trump?

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is notorious for using his Twitter accounts to incite hate, violence and disinformation. Yet his many accounts in multiple languages still exist on the platform. (AN Design)
Short Url
Updated 22 March 2021
Follow

Why won’t Twitter ban Khamenei when it permanently suspended Trump?

  • Twitter took action last year against ex-president Donald Trump by adding fact-checking and violence labels to his tweets and eventually suspending his account @realDonaldTrump permanently on January 8
  • On March 18, Twitter wrote in a blog post that it is “calling for public input” on its approach to world leaders

DUBAI: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is notorious for using his Twitter accounts to incite hate, violence and disinformation. Yet his many accounts in multiple languages still exist on the platform.

These accounts, in languages including Persian, English, and Spanish, regularly post content that would – and should – violate Twitter’s policies.

In January, an account linked to Khamenei’s personal office posted a graphic threatening “revenge” while appearing to depict former President Trump under the shadow of a looming airstrike, which was retweeted by one of Khamenei’s personal accounts. Following public backlash, Twitter suspended the account that posted the tweet but not the personal account.

 

 

It said it suspended the account due to a violation of its policy against fake accounts.

“The justification that Twitter reportedly gave for why it shut down that particular account but not others was not just unpersuasive, it was preposterous,” David Weinberg, Washington director for international affairs of the US-based anti-hate organization Anti-Defamation League (ADL), told Arab News.

“For one thing, it was followed by and frequently retweeted by other central Khamenei accounts (which were not suspended). It had also been allowed to promote all kinds of problematic content for half a year until then. So, why all of a sudden did it get removed – just a day or two after posting material that was incitement to violence?” he said.

Following the incident, ADL wrote a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey calling to deplatform all accounts linked to Khamenei without delay for repeated violations of Twitter’s rules that prohibit incitement to hatred and violence.

The letter gave examples of how Khamenei’s tweets have continually violated three specific policies – Glorification of Violence, Hateful Conduct and COVID-19 Misleading Information – and urged Twitter to suspend the associated accounts.

Signed by ADL CEO and National Director Jonathan Greenblatt, the letter ends:

“But given that you have already suspended an American president from your platform earlier this month, and just removed one of Khamenei’s many Twitter accounts for its blatant and threatening violations of Twitter’s policies, that standard must urgently be applied to Khamenei’s panoply of other Twitter accounts, which so clearly pose a danger to public safety and routinely violate Twitter’s terms of service.”

Twitter took action last year against ex-president Donald Trump by adding fact-checking and violence labels to his tweets and eventually suspending his account @realDonaldTrump permanently on January 8.

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” it said.

However, when US Senate Commerce Chair Roger Wicker asked Dorsey in a hearing last year about tweets from Khamenei that “glorified violence,” Dorsey defended the decision to keep them unlabeled on the platform.

He said, “We did not find those to violate our terms of service because we considered them ‘saber rattling,’ which is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries.”

Weinberg commented: “The lesson over and over again from modern human history, as I read it, is that when a fanatical dictator responsible for the slaughter of thousands of his own citizens, as well as horrific violence, and calls for genocide against the other, says what they’re going to do, the international community needs to take that seriously; not just dismiss it as tough talk or posturing or playing to a domestic audience.”

 

 

He went on to add that sometimes when “murderous fanatics” say they’re going to commit genocide or eliminate countries or “demonize entire religions and nations of people,” it is genuine.

“It is an expression of their genuine worldview and their genuine intent.”

It was around the same time that Twitter had put labels on Trump’s tweets about widespread fraud in voting by mail and other tweets that it said violated its policies “regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.”

Replying to the Senator about the double standards of labeling Trump’s tweets but not those of other world leaders, Dorsey said, “We saw the confusion it might encourage and we labeled it accordingly. The goal of our labeling is to provide more context, to connect the dots so people can have more information so they can make decisions for themselves.”

On March 18, Twitter wrote in a blog post that it is “calling for public input” on its approach to world leaders.

“Politicians and government officials are constantly evolving how they use our service, and we want our policies to remain relevant to the ever-changing nature of political discourse on Twitter and protect the health of the public conversation.”

It said that it is consulting with human rights experts, civil society organizations, and academics and has released a public survey in 14 languages including Arabic, English, Spanish and Farsi.

“Ultimately, our aim is to have a policy that appropriately balances fundamental human rights and considers the global context in which we operate,” the post said.

Critics are asking why Twitter does not apply the same policies to all users whether they are private citizens or world leaders.

“Twitter should enforce its terms of service for all users, whether private citizen, elected official or unelected tyrant. Propagating hate, glorifying terrorism and encouraging Holocaust denial should get you kicked off Twitter permanently,” Weinberg said in an ADL blog post titled “Twitter Must De-Platform Iran’s Supreme Leader.”

While there certainly is public interest in being able to have free access to a broad array of information, “it is not in the public interest to have companies providing a platform for incitement to hatred and violence,” he told Arab News.

 

 

Furthermore, the public interest argument ignores the fact that “heads of states have their own ways to get their message out” from their own websites and media outlets to proxy organizations.

“To suggest that Khamenei needs to have a Twitter account so people can know his hateful and murderous messages is not just not serving the public interest, but it ignores the fact that he has many other avenues for spreading his propaganda,” said Weinberg.

This argument also misses the fact there is heavy censorship on Twitter within Iran.

“The main thing in terms of information in the public interest, as relates to the Iranian people, is that they should have free access to the Internet, which their government does not permit them to.”

A hearing titled “Disinformation Nation: Social Media’s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation” by the Energy and Commerce Committee, scheduled for March 25, marks the start of a new inquiry on misinformation and disinformation plaguing online platforms.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai will testify.

Soleimani’s shadow
Qassem Soleimani left a trail of death and destruction in his wake as head of Iran’s Quds Force … until his assassination on Jan. 3, 2020. Yet still, his legacy of murderous interference continues to haunt the region

Enter


keywords

TikTok says it’s in the process of restoring service to US users

Updated 19 January 2025
Follow

TikTok says it’s in the process of restoring service to US users

  • TikTok thanks Donald Trump, who says he plans to give TikTok’s China-based parent company more time to find an approved buyer
  • Popular video-sharing platform went dark in US in response to new law

NEW YORK: TikTok says it’s “in the process” of restoring service to users in the United States after the popular video-sharing platform went dark in response to a new law.
The company that runs TikTok said in a post on X on Sunday that tech companies that faced fines if they didn’t remove TikTok’s app from the digital stores and other service providers had agreed to help.
TikTok thanked President-elect Donald Trump, who on Sunday said he planned to sign an executive order after his inauguration on Monday to give TikTok’s China-based parent company more time to find an approved buyer before the popular video-sharing platform is subject to a permanent USban.
It was not immediately clear whether TikTok was working as it did before the company instituted a blackout late Saturday. Some users reported that the app was working, and TikTok’s website appeared to be functioning for at least some users. However, the app remained unavailable for download on Apple’s app store.
Google and Apple removed the app from their digital stores to comply with a federal law that required them to do so if TikTok parent company ByteDance didn’t sell its US operation by Sunday. The law, which passed with wide bipartisan support in April, allowed for steep fines for non-compliance.
TikTok said Trump’s promise of an executive order had provided “the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”


US Navy veteran evacuating Afghans wins $5m in CNN defamation suit

Updated 18 January 2025
Follow

US Navy veteran evacuating Afghans wins $5m in CNN defamation suit

  • The settlement will avert a second phase of the trial that would have determined any punitive damages

WASHINGTON: CNN reached a settlement on Friday with a US Navy veteran who helped evacuate people from Afghanistan after the US military withdrew from the country in 2021, a judge said on Friday, hours after a jury found the TV news outlet liable for defaming him.

The six-person jury decided CNN had to pay damages totaling $5 million. The settlement will avert a second phase of the trial that would have determined any punitive damages. The verdict followed a two-week trial in Panama City, Florida, state court.

Circuit Judge William Henry did not provide details of the deal in announcing the settlement in open court.

Plaintiff Zachary Young sued CNN in 2022, accusing the Warner Bros Discovery unit of destroying his reputation in a segment on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” by branding him as a profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans by charging exorbitant fees.

CNN stood by its story and denied defaming Young, though the network said in March 2022 that it regretted using the term “black market” to describe Young’s work.

A CNN representative said the network remains proud of its journalists but “will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case.” The representative declined to offer details of the deal.

Young’s lawyer Vel Freedman said in a statement that he was very pleased to clear Young’s name, obtain punitive damages and settle the case.

Young, wearing a dark suit and blue tie, smiled as Henry thanked the lawyers for their work before dismissing them.

The case stems from Young’s work as a security consultant helping corporations and charities extract people from Afghanistan after the Taliban swiftly took back control following the chaotic US withdrawal.

In a segment on The Lead, CNN said “desperate Afghans” trying to escape the country were being “exploited” with “exorbitant” and “impossible” fees charged for evacuations.

The segment turned to focus on Young, displaying his name and photo next to a chyron saying evacuees faced a perilous “black market.”

“The sum and substance of the segment states and implies that Young marketed evacuations directly to Afghan citizens, that he exploited Afghan citizens, and that he sold them illegal goods/services on a black market,” Young said in his lawsuit.


TikTok ban: Last-minute reprieve or rule of law?

Updated 17 January 2025
Follow

TikTok ban: Last-minute reprieve or rule of law?

  • As the Jan. 19 deadline looms for TikTok’s potential ban in the US, rumors are rife speculating on the future of the video app

DUBAI/LONDON: With just days left until the official ban of Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok is set to take effect in the US, speculation is mounting over what happens next — and whether there could still be a last-minute twist.

The short answer: No one knows for certain.

In March 2024, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that, if signed into law, would force ByteDance, the China-based owner of TikTok, to sell the video-sharing app. The Senate passed the bill, and President Joe Biden signed it, ordering ByteDance to sell TikTok to an American company or face a ban in the US by Jan. 19.

At the time, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said that such a law “will take billions of dollars out of the pockets of creators and small businesses” and put more than 30,000 American jobs at risk.

Neither he nor the company were willing to give up without a fight. In May 2024, TikTok and ByteDance sued the US federal government challenging the law, alleging that it was unconstitutional.

In December, a federal appeals court ruled the TikTok law was constitutional. A month later, on Jan. 10, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pivotal case brought by TikTok and its users challenging the law on the basis of US users’ First Amendment rights.

On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban after days of speculation, during which it refrained from making public comments on the case, leaving a sliver of hope for a last-minute reprieve. With the decision now confirmed, TikTok’s options have significantly narrowed.

In its ruling, the court stated: “We conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.”

This decision means TikTok will no longer be available for download from app stores starting Jan. 19.

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the ruling reads.

The outcome seemed increasingly likely during the hearings, with Justice Elena Kagan saying: “The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation that doesn't have First Amendment rights. Whatever effect it has, it has.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett added: “The law doesn’t say TikTok has to shut down. It says ByteDance has to divest.”

Amid the legal back and forth, TikTok’s knight in shining armor might just be President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office on Jan. 20 — one day after the purported ban.

Despite trying to ban the app during his first term over national security concerns, he joined TikTok during his 2024 presidential campaign, during which he pledged to “save TikTok.” He also lauded the platform for helping him win more youth votes.

When asked about his policies on social media regulation, particularly the impending ban of TikTok, Karoline Leavitt, Trump-Vance Transition Team spokeswoman, told Arab News: “The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin, giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver.”

Just last month, Trump urged the Supreme Court to pause the ban.

The brief submitted to the court says Trump “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government.”

Moreover, earlier this week, reports emerged that TikTok CEO Chew has been invited to Trump’s inauguration and offered a “position of honor,” suggesting a willingness to engage with the company.

And Mike Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, told FOX News that the new administration would “find a way to preserve (TikTok) but protect people’s data.”

Any intervention by Trump, however, would likely take the form of an executive order temporarily pausing the ban, contingent on TikTok demonstrating progress toward separating from ByteDance. Even then, such an order could face legal challenges, and the law only allows a limited delay of 60 to 90 days to give extra time for negotiations.

Outgoing President Biden, who will leave office on Jan. 19, will not enforce a ban on TikTok, a US official said Thursday, leaving its fate in the hands of Trump.

Rumors of a potential sale have intensified in recent days including speculation of interest from high-profile buyers, such as Elon Musk, but ByteDance dismissed these reports as “pure fiction.”

The company has consistently rejected the possibility of a sale, saying it “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.”

As the Jan. 19 deadline approaches, the situation remains shrouded in uncertainty, even after Friday’s ruling.

For now, TikTok’s chances of remaining accessible in the US appear practically null, as the case is steeped in complex issues of politics, national security, economic interests, and digital rights.

The law underpinning the ban targets a wide network of US-based partners that facilitate TikTok’s operations, effectively making common workarounds, such as using virtual private networks or changing a phone’s regional settings, either ineffective or impractical, according to experts.

At best, users might gain limited access to a web-based version of the app, which lacks many of its features. However, even that option may not function reliably, experts warned.

The most likely enforcement mechanism would involve compelling app stores like Google Play and Apple’s App Store to remove TikTok from their platforms in the US. Lawmakers have already instructed tech companies to prepare for this scenario if the ban is enacted.

If the app is banned, TikTok reportedly plans to display a pop-up message for users attempting to access the platform, directing them to a website with information about the ban, according to a Reuters report citing sources close to the matter.

For now, TikTok’s operations continue as usual, with the company having reassured employees that their jobs are secure regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision. However, morale within the company is said to be low, despite these reassurances.

What is certain is that TikTok’s leadership has been “planning for various scenarios.” With Friday’s decision now final and the Jan. 19 ban imminent, the company’s next steps will likely take one of two paths: intervention by Trump or divestment to a non-Chinese entity.

Meanwhile, users and critics alike wait in anticipation, seeking clarity on the far-reaching consequences of the ban — potentially rippling as far as the Middle East — and whether any last-minute developments might offer a reprieve for the platform and its millions of US users.


London’s pro-Palestine demo set for standoff as police-approved route rejected

Updated 18 January 2025
Follow

London’s pro-Palestine demo set for standoff as police-approved route rejected

  • Organizers say they will assemble at Whitehall on Saturday to protest the police ban on their original demonstration route
  • Police ban on the original gathering at the BBC headquarters, citing a potential threat to the Jewish community, has sparked backlash

LONDON: Tensions are rising ahead of a planned pro-Palestine demonstration in London after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and its coalition partners vowed to reject the Metropolitan Police’s proposed new route for the march.

Organizers have announced they will gather at Whitehall on Saturday to protest the police decision instead.

PSC, alongside Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Muslim Association of Britain, Friends of Al-Aqsa, and the Palestine Forum in Britain, made the announcement on Friday following protracted negotiations with police.

The Met had last week banned the original march, which was scheduled to start at the BBC’s headquarters, citing its proximity to a synagogue and potential security concerns.

“Despite intensive efforts to reach a compromise with the Met, it has so far refused to accept or offer a reasonable solution,” said the coalition in a statement. “However, we will assemble on Whitehall on Saturday at noon. We reiterate our call on the police to lift their repressive conditions and allow us to march. If they continue to refuse to do so and prevent us from marching, we will be rallying in Whitehall to protest.”

The controversy erupted after the police revoked the pre-approved march route, which had been announced in November, over claims it could pose a threat to the Jewish community.

Organizers described the decision as “discriminatory” and accused the authorities of bowing to political pressure from pro-Israeli groups.

“The Met has seemingly accepted and acted upon the arguments of pro-Israel groups that seek to delegitimise our protest as antisemitic or a threat to Jewish people,” said PSC Director Ben Jamal. “This is a gross distortion of the truth. There is not a single instance of our marches posing any threat to synagogues or Jewish individuals. Indeed, we count a large, self-organised Jewish bloc as some of our most indefatigable supporters.”

Organizers also said they offered to reroute the march to avoid clashing with Shabbat services at the synagogue, but claimed the police refused their proposals.

“Over the past week the Met Police have imposed a series of repressive conditions to prevent us marching and have even attempted to impose a route that the Board of Deputies of British Jews announced they had suggested to the police. This has been firmly rejected by the Palestine Coalition — it is an affront that pro-Israel groups can attempt to decide where we can or cannot march,” read the group’s statement.

On Friday, the coalition said that while they plan to defy the ban, they would gather at Whitehall instead of the BBC’s Portland Place headquarters. They also claimed the police had backed away from plans to arrest protesters assembling outside Russell Square, which the Met had suggested as a designated protest zone.

The police’s decision has drawn widespread criticism, with several cultural figures and members of the Jewish community urging the authorities to reverse the ban.

“The Met’s approach has been confrontational, heavy-handed and intransigent. Their use of powers under the Public Order Act has been based on flimsy grounds and arbitrarily applied, which erodes the right of peaceful protest that is fundamental in a democracy,” Jamal said. “Despite this, our protest tomorrow will go ahead — we call on all those who seek justice for Palestine to stand with us.”


Lebanese journalist appointed presidency spokesperson

Updated 17 January 2025
Follow

Lebanese journalist appointed presidency spokesperson

  • Charafeddine is one of two women appointed to the president’s team

DUBAI: Lebanese journalist Najat Charafeddine has been appointed as spokesperson for the presidency, the first woman to hold such a position.

Charafeddine is one of two women appointed to the president’s team, an unprecedented move announced a week after the election of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.

Diplomat Jeanne Mrad, who serves at Lebanon’s permanent mission to the United Nations, has been appointed as an adviser for diplomatic affairs at the presidency.

The appointments were hailed by the Lebanese media as a step toward empowering women on the political scene.

Charafeddine, a native of the southern Lebanese town of Taybeh in the Marjeyoun district, holds a bachelor’s degree in communication and media studies from the Lebanese University, and lectured for three years at Antonine University.

She started her career at Future TV, where she worked for 20 years between 1993 and 2013. She first appeared to the public as a news anchor before hosting the programs “Why Taif?” and “Transit.”

Her success in Lebanon paved the way for international reporting. She covered the wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) as a correspondent for Future TV. Charafeddine also reported on several international conferences and participated in political and media forums in Washington, London, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, and other countries.

In 2015, Charafeddine moved to Al-Araby TV, where she hosted programs such as “Arab Neighbors” and “Special Dialogue” until 2018. Later, she continued her career in radio, presenting the political program “Sunday Encounter” on Voice of All Lebanon radio.

In addition to her broadcast work, Sharafeddine has written articles for publications such as As-Safir, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, and Al-Shiraa magazine.

She is the wife of former Finance Minister Ghazi Wazni, who was chosen by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in the government of Hassan Diab.