Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders • Hacker News Board

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#221

Post by barbazoo » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

ed312 wrote: post #156

tacostakohashi wrote: post #146

I don't really have much of an opinion on how twitter should approach world leaders. I'm more interested in the approach of world leaders to twitter. As far as I'm concerned, people receiving salaries from the taxpayer shouldn't be spending their time writing free copy for twitter. They should be communicating with the public via government operated websites, or press conferences covered by multiple media organizatio…

Do you also oppose the US President holding press conferences for privately owned broadcast TV channels?

Given that the list of organisations [0] consists of public and private ones, your statement reads somewhat disingenuous to me.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#222

Post by kbelder » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

danaliv wrote: post #114

exabrial wrote: post #23

Be a free speech platform, how about that?

How about we all admit that this is a simplistic position that flies in the face of centuries of case law trying to work out exactly what "free speech" means and how it squares with people's other fundamental, inalienable rights, because in real life it's not, in fact, obvious?

Simple doesn't mean simplistic.

I'd like a platform that removes illegal speech, nothing else. Such a platform should be legal.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#223

Post by mtc010170 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

aww_dang wrote: post #175

mtc010170 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious because I didn't realize this was a trend. Can anyone share some more info/sources on the decline outside the US?

Please read it as the decline of other heavily regulated/unionized industries relative to the booming online service sector within the US.

Oh I follow now.. thanks for clarifying!

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#224

Post by nostromo » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #146

I don't really have much of an opinion on how twitter should approach world leaders. I'm more interested in the approach of world leaders to twitter. As far as I'm concerned, people receiving salaries from the taxpayer shouldn't be spending their time writing free copy for twitter. They should be communicating with the public via government operated websites, or press conferences covered by multiple media organizatio…

I don't trust the media enough to honestly and accurately convey information from my elected officials to me.

And while press releases on whitehouse.gov are a step in the right direction, the fact that they are press releases usually makes them anodyne and uninteresting.

The best approach is the one we used to have: a non-partisan (or at least, bipartisan) press corps asking elected tough questions live on television. But that has been lost for some time now.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#225

Post by loveistheanswer » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #176

I think Twitter fails to realize that cyber space will ultimately supersede real world in its importance as a common space to interact, transact, communicate and live. We’re already close to that point. This: “Generally, we want to hear from the public on whether or not they believe world leaders should be subject to the same rules as others on Twitter. And, should a world leader violate a rule, what type of enforcem…

>Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a company as a monopoly.

-Marshall Mcluhan, 1966

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#226

Post by krapp » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

T-hawk wrote: post #195

krapp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech. Given that every government in history which has recognized the concept of "free speech", including the United States, has regulated and even outlawed some forms of speech, and given that "consequence" is a natural, emergent property of societies and the fact that humans are social, emotional animals who don't proces…

If you continue being okay with every loss of speech, then the only endpoint will be to have no speech at all.

When did I claim to be okay with every loss of speech?

Every business and website since time immemorial has had the ability to choose with whom they do business, and what goods to stock and what not, and every publisher has had the right to choose which work to publish and which not. Despite common arguments, sites like Twitter are not the public commons, nor do they hold a monopoly on human communication, nor do they control public discourse.

Even Benjamin Franklin sometimes turned away people who wanted to publish slanderous material in his newspaper. Freedom of speech doesn't obligate all platforms to carry your speech - it never has. Twitter being able to moderate content and ban accounts - even the personal accounts of Presidents of the United States - does not violate freedom of speech.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#227

Post by jfengel » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #218

jfengel wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need those exciting leaders if their sole goal is to maximize their profits. If they also want to have a world to spend their profits in, it's worth considering that some tactics may be different. This is unusual territory, since it's not all that common for one company to be so closely involved with what could literally have been violent insurrection, even leading to outright war. It didn't, but it came far clo…

The capitol hill thing was planned on Facebook, not Twitter (or Gab for that matter). Twitter has an inflated sense of its own importance.

Twitter was the primary medium connecting the President with the people who believed that thy were doing "the capitol hill thing" at his behest. Whether that was his intention or not, Twitter carried messages directly from the President to people who acted on them.

Twitter was without a doubt important. It wasn't the sole player, to be sure, but they were a direct intermediary between a prominent leader and his followers, bypassing all other gatekeepers.

Perhaps he'd have switched to an email newsletter or Facebook or another social medium, but in the days leading up to January 6, it was very much about Twitter.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#228

Post by jimmytucson » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:35 PM UTC

I must say Twitter is handling this masterfully. They already censored the president of the United States, oft-called the most powerful person in the world. The die is cast. Soliciting opinions now adds a layer of plausible deniability without changing things.

What could be the outcome? Will a cohort of COVID-deniers convince Twitter that everyone is entitled to an opinion, leading to the great unbanning of Donald Trump?

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#229

Post by tonyarkles » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #155

debacle wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Twitter's problem is that there isn't enough feel good content. Facebook shows you the dark pattern engagement content, but they also have pictures of your family, kids selling girl scout cookies, 10 minute videos about how to turn ramen noodles into a combine harvester, etc. Twitter only has the dark pattern engagement content and it makes people sick after too long. Maybe they should buy a Flicker type plat…

> that there isn't enough feel good content. Any time I see people make sweeping claims about what the content on some social media site/app "is", I feel compelled to point out that your Twitter and my Twitter are likely much more different than you realize. Because the UI looks the same, people naturally assume the content is similar, but your experience is highly dependent on who you follow. My Twitter feed is 50%…

Heck, an individual's Twitter experience can be radically changed just by making some changes. A few years ago, I had pretty much abandoned Twitter. Like the GP says, it was a cesspool of negativity. And then I heard someone talk about the "cocktail party" strategy: "If you were at a cocktail party and ended up next to this person, would you hang out and chat? Or would you excuse yourself and go somewhere else?"

I spent about a week making decisions like that as I saw tweets scroll by. Every time I saw one where I'd answer "ugh, no", I just unfollowed that person. Soon, my feed was much nicer, and I started to get recommendations for more people to follow that added to my experience!

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#230

Post by ska » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

canoebuilder wrote: post #157

nonotreally wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that I've stumbled into some new idea. I'm trying to understand what people mean when they say "free speech platform". It seems to be a get out of jail free card of sorts. "Free speech" without any limits obviously doesn't work. Where are the limits of the parent comment? The devil is in the details.

Twitter, Facebook etc. are communication platforms in the same way the postal service, telephone system, etc are communications platforms. Communication platforms in the US should adhere to the US constitution.

Are you suggesting that these international platforms should keep track of location (and nationality?) of everyone who is on them and apply different standards based on that?

Or just on the basis of the one or more places the company itself is are incorporated? Will they shop around for communication laws the same way they do for taxes?