A) I never said Twitter should be labelled a state-owned news company, just whether it should be labelled state-owned.
B) Twitter (like all "platforms") holds the ability to control the flow of information. The moment a "platform" puts their finger on the scales and blocks certain types of legal information from being discovered (as they did last week in blocking substack links, for example) then they forfeit their claim to being a "platform" and should be treated as media distribution companies. As such they should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as news organizations should be
> Twitter doesn’t report the news. It’s a platform. Labels are for publishers of news.
“A platform” is just an internet term for a kind of publisher (roughly corresponding to “an online publisher who mostly publishes things for which it is – or would be, if it was operating in the US – protected from the liability usually attached to publishers via DMCA section 230.”)
Personally yes, when i hear everyone clamour for transparency, I want brutal honest transparency, so yes twitter handle and twitter docs should clearly mention that they are owned by Saudia and terrorist Qatar.
Same with DW News, Al Jazeera, Middle East eye and Gulf news.
I've always wondered, without pure transparency, who will guard the guards?
At least DW is totally transparent about it. A quick look at their web site gives you that info immediately. The info page about it even figures as one of the top Questions in their FAQ:
"DW is Germany’s international broadcaster. It is organized under public law and funded by the German federal tax budget."
"DW is financed via funding from the state, i.e. from tax revenue. This is in contrast to the domestic public channels, which are funded via broadcasting fees."
Should Twitter come with a label as "state-owned" considering both the Qatari and Saudi governments hold a significant stake in the company?