At this point it feels like the best option is to shut twitter down completely. What good comes solely from twitter?
Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
271–280 of 373 posts
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not. There's a natural scarcity of space for physical cameras and reporters. As far as I understand, the press themselves are largely responsible for figuring out these logistics via the WHCA. (Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.) There isn't any practical scarcity for text streams coming from the White House though, so I can't think of a reason why consuming them should be tied to a closed platform like T…
Twitter isn't "a closed platform" in the sense that is relevant here. If I want to read the President's tweets without a Twitter account, I can.
That's not the sense that I was using, and I don't think it's a relevant point either. What's important IMO is that the platform and the data are not controlled by elected officials.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#273Be a free speech platform, how about that?
Free as in everything that's legal?
Sounds conceptually great to me.
How can such a platform figure out what's legal? Can it default to leaving legally questionable things up? Consulting real lawyer's in every fringe case seems not practical.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "free copy for twitter" anymore than a press briefing is "free copy for newspapers". Leaders communicate wherever people are already reading and listening. Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news. People already read Twitter and find it far more convenient to follow a world leader than to visit individual sites or set up an RSS reader. Also you might be suffering fr…
>Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news. Twitter is a terrible medium for discourse. You wouldn't suggest that world leaders communicate via TikTok, simply because it's popular.
If it got younger people engaged why would it be a bad thing?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "free copy for twitter" anymore than a press briefing is "free copy for newspapers". Leaders communicate wherever people are already reading and listening. Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news. People already read Twitter and find it far more convenient to follow a world leader than to visit individual sites or set up an RSS reader. Also you might be suffering fr…
>Today, Twitter is just as important of a conduit as newspapers or the evening news. Twitter is a terrible medium for discourse. You wouldn't suggest that world leaders communicate via TikTok, simply because it's popular.
"Important" and "terrible for discourse" are orthogonal.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is still an elected member of congress, and from what I hear - a rather popular one, regardless of her "tinfoil hatery". Opposition parties should _never_ have the power to just expel people they don't like from the opposing side. I'm sure it's purely coincidence she is locked from her twitter account on the same day that congress will be voting on a resolution on whether or not to expel her.
Free speech is not concerned with a person's ability to spew and regurgitate bs in private platforms and I see no reason to give her preferential treatment over anyone else.
freedom of speech protections exist to protect against this exact sentiment.
You can't just silence everyone you disagree with.
They have their right for 'spewing' their 'bs' just like you have for 'spewing' yours.
And it's not up to you, me or Twitter to decide which opinions are right or wrong.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#277I 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…
The problem is that all leaders have an inherent conflict of interest between the following two goals: 1. Doing the job 2. Maintaining power The problem is, again, two-fold: 1. The things you need to do to serve the first goal are often different from the things you need to do to serve the second, and 2. You must achieve the second goal in order to even attempt to achieve the first. That's the fundamental problem. It…
This is a great point and this[1] video gets at the same thing with much more detail and examples
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer? Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?
That would fall into the "illegal" [0] category if people are in fact calling for violence. [0] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
Not if it's non-specific. What if someone says "Death to all [group of people]", should they be banned? It's calling for violence but is not illegal in the US.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that all leaders have an inherent conflict of interest between the following two goals: 1. Doing the job 2. Maintaining power The problem is, again, two-fold: 1. The things you need to do to serve the first goal are often different from the things you need to do to serve the second, and 2. You must achieve the second goal in order to even attempt to achieve the first. That's the fundamental problem. It…
This is a great point and this[1] video gets at the same thing with much more detail and examples [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Yes, that is a truly fantastic video. Should be required viewing for everyone.
[UPDATE] There's a book too:
https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is not concerned with a person's ability to spew and regurgitate bs in private platforms and I see no reason to give her preferential treatment over anyone else.
freedom of speech protections exist to protect against this exact sentiment. You can't just silence everyone you disagree with. They have their right for 'spewing' their 'bs' just like you have for 'spewing' yours. And it's not up to you, me or Twitter to decide which opinions are right or wrong.
They can go in a public place to do, e.g. press conferences and so on.
Any person has the right to dictate a mode of conduct on their platform and penalize individuals who do not follow said code. Why should I be paying for bandwidth and host the content of any individual who does not follow my rules in my platform? I provide a service and I have the right to dictate who gets to use it.
The senator can go spew her homophobia, conspiracy theories and racism in a public space, nobody prevents her, but I certainly wouldn't provide a platform for her and her ilk.