"Other platforms cannot replace it," said a senior member of the Taliban in a tweet, explaining that Meta is "intolerant."

Anas Haqqani, a senior leader in the Taliban, has officially endorsed Twitter over Facebook-owned competitor Threads.

“Twitter has two important advantages over other social media platforms,” Haqqani said in an English post on Twitter. “The first privilege is the freedom of speech. The second privilege is the public nature & credibility of Twitter. Twitter doesn’t have an intolerant policy like Meta. Other platforms cannot replace it.”

Twitter has fallen out of favor with many people since Elon Musk took over the company last year…The Taliban, however, seems to love it. Two Taliban officials even bought blue verification check marks after Musk started selling them in January.

Haqqani noted that the biggest draw of Twitter was this lax moderation policy…Facebook and TikTok both view the Taliban as a terrorist organization and disallow them from posting. It’s a ban that persists to this day.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
    169·
    1 year ago

    Pretty funny to see a member of the Taliban espouse freedom of speech. I really doubt that

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      A handful of years ago, US Republicans were losing their shit over Muslims and the Taliban, basically saying they were the biggest threat. I’m honestly waiting for them to realize that their views are almost completely aligned with the Taliban’s. Both against abortion and LGBTQ rights, both want religion in schools and to get rid of the separation of church and state, etc. It doesn’t at all surprise me that Republicans and the Taliban have the same preferred social media.

      • CyanFen@lemmy.oneEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        Just like how people you can’t stand the most just subconsciously remind you of yourself, republicans can’t stand the taliban because it’s like looking in a mirror for them.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        That’s because they’re both authoritarians.

        It’s the same reason Tankies hate Nazi’s when they’re both essentially the same thing in practice despite their economic outlooks being opposite. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, everything else is just a different flavor.

        Christian authoritarians think they’re good and muslim’s sharia law bad, but in reality they’re just two religions trying to force their shit on everyone else. They physically cannot see that it’s the same because to them it’s “morally correct” and therefore not authoritarianism.

      • FinalBoy1975@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        It makes no sense but it makes sense to the general public. When it ceases to make sense to the general public, it will be seen as you and I see it. I’m not holding my breath until the general public figures this out. You really can’t fix dumb and uneducated. It’s what politicians count on. Your dumb and uneducated vote manipulated by key terms thrown out there and reproduced in whatever media you like and is willing to send to you.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      It’s the Taliban, the appropriate action is to ignore everything they say because they’re religious extremists who commit violent actions against random citizens of their own and other nations.

      I they said Twitter was bad and endorsed Threads would you still give a shit? lol

    • WarmSoda@lemm.eeEnglish
      15·
      1 year ago

      Sweet. Thank you for the link! Is there an ate the onion community out there yet?

    • 10tec@aussie.zoneEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I’m new to Lemmy and have my account on Aussie.zone. Do I need to register an account on the lemmy.world instance for that link to work? I’m using the Connect app on Android if that helps.

      • Johnny@feddit.deEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        Nope, your app should be able to send you there by clicking that ID. If it isn’t, then that’s likely a feature that is still being implemented (it’s the equivalent to r/subreddit on Reddit).

        Btw in case you haven’t noticed, you’re already commenting on a Post from lemmy.world, so no, you don’t need a separate account.

  • TheTechNerd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    641·
    1 year ago

    “Two Taliban officials even bought blue verification check marks after Musk started selling them in January”

    I am dead

  • astral_avocado@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    61·
    1 year ago

    “Twitter has two important advantages over other social media platforms,” Haqqani said in an English post on Twitter. “The first privilege is the freedom of speech.

    I know it’s the Taliban but I cannot believe how braindead they are. They don’t even remember that they’re so anti free speech, they’ll hunt down and kill dissidents especially women who have the guts to get an education.

    • c2h6@lemmy.worldEnglish
      431·
      1 year ago

      The taliban and Musk share the same values, then - to both of them, free speech means “you can say anything, as long as its what I like”.

    • pandarisu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      The only person who has true freedom of speech on Twitter is Elon Musk. If he doesn’t like something you say (for example apparently he doesn’t like the term ‘Cisgender’), he can ban you

  • LexiconDexicon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    551·
    1 year ago

    I remember back around 2012-2013 ISIS using twitter to post gore videos and twitter was lazy asf about dealing with it

    • Shardikprime@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Twitter had been like that even before Elon tho. Let’s not also forget Facebook is fine and dandy with ISIS and other extremist groups

      • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        That should be a good thing in your view tho, no? Aren’t you the one defending the presence of extremists into online platforms? Shouldn’t Facebook and Twitter allow and even put under the spotlight these kind of ideologies?

        Fuck it man, go for a full racist party then; why limit yourself to institutionalised racism when you can have ignorant racism directly?

          • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            As far as I am aware the only openly racist party being allowed on social media is the alt-right (the institutionalised right on the other hand is still clever enough to keep its racism hidden behind a façade of economics bullshit).

            Pray tell, which extremist left wing organisation have been supporting twitter, threads or any other social media platform?

            And since you are there, can you please explain how can you post a message without using your brain?

  • UpperBroccoli@feddit.deEnglish
    371·
    1 year ago

    But the real question is: which platform would Hitler use?

    …not that I’d expect the answer to differ.

  • Poob@lemmy.caEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    I’m speechless at how ludicrous this headline is. I feel like even the Onion would reject it for being too bonkers.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldEnglish
    332·
    1 year ago

    Not that this changes anything but it’s worth noting that the Taliban were provided a platform on Twitter even before they took power and before even Elon acquired it.

    Right now Facebook is also full of hate-speech by Islamists who circumvent hate-speech filters by writing in Arabic or Parsi, as Meta’s AI in those languages is a complete failure, very biased as it’s trained on hateful content already as laws in those countries favor hate-speech (as an example, in Saudi Arabia being an atheist is considered “terrorism” and in most MENA countries homophobic content is normal) and moderators are sourced locally and hence also very biased.

    There’s a disturbing trend of big tech being comfortable hosting extremists and borderline terrorist spokespeople. And my unpopular guess is that it is obviously because the US wants the Taliban and other Islamist groups to be legitimized. Why? I’m not sure, geopolitics is totally above my pay grade. But it is clear that historically the US had no issues siding with hardcore Islamists in the MENA region and right now there is a clear trend to normalize Islamist propaganda online.

    Reminder that the Taliban are still preventing girls from going to school since they took over, despite a certain president assuring us that the US isn’t abandoning Afghan women and that the Taliban have “changed” anyway, and they cracked down on female university students too.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      They’re okay with it because it looks good for the bean counters and KPIs. There’s no KPI for “we removed hate speech visibility by 50%” but there is one for “we got 50 million new users from MENA on our platform to show ads to.”

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      1 year ago

      Why is Facebook not beholden to the countries in which it provides service to provide the service those countries and people prefer?

      Your problem is with those countries and people, not with social media.

      • MercuryUprising@lemmy.worldEnglish
        254·
        1 year ago

        “We should let actual terrorists communicate and radicalize others, because there’s a block button already. PS: I’m very smart.”

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        We are enabling them with technology they had no hope to ever develop themselves and using said technology to actively support their thuggish way of life.

        Tell me you would let the women in your family live there.

            • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
              23·
              1 year ago

              How does not wanting my family (or myself - not sure why you made it sexist) to live there at all relevant?

              If you want the world to declare unilateral war on authoritarian despot nations I’m all for that, but as I recall that view seems to be “Imperialist.”

              How do you square these feelings in your head?

                • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  I wasn’t the person you asked, but I am in favor of everyone who wants to escape any authoritarian state to be able to leave.

                  In fact, I am for the free movement of people as a natural right, coupled with absolute open borders, defended with military force by a coalition of world governments.

                  I am strongly anti-authoritarian. I just don’t see how it is Facebook’s responsibility to effect change in hostile nation-states.