Same rules, no special treatment, no special indicators or "official" tags. Don't involve yourself in the politics. You do not want to be caught in wether taiwan is a country or not, or who the leader of palestine is, etc.
Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
281–290 of 373 posts
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the state has an incentive to create critical thinkers, the incentive is just obfuscated substantially from the average decision maker in "the state".
I don't believe so. The state by its nature wants to find equilibrium like practically every other system. One of the paths of least resistance is the manipulation of the public into an unthinking, docile, and generally inert individual. This makes everything much more predictable and controllable, which brings it closer to equilibrium. You could intuit this sort of outcome, perhaps, from a reading of "Thinking, Fast…
The state is people. There is no difference between "the state" and "its people". If its people are manipulated, the state is manipulated itself.
The state wants compliance as much as the people want compliance, which is certainly one incentive, but it exists in parallel with other, competing incentives.
"The state" doesn't exist as an independent thinking body. I don't think it's healthy to treat it like it does.
I do agree though, the incentives are hidden, non-obvious. Progress is incentivized because it helps the state, and it helps the state because it helps the people.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#283Be a free speech platform, how about that?
These platforms exist and aren't hard to find. They also tend to be cesspools.
Part of the value proposition of their competitors is that they do moderate their content, to some extent.
I don't see why we should force all platforms to operate essentially without moderation.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#284Same rules, no special treatment, no special indicators or "official" tags. Don't involve yourself in the politics. You do not want to be caught in wether taiwan is a country or not, or who the leader of palestine is, etc.
I aggree with this.
And no special moderation either. If it violates what Bay Area Americans consider ok, ban the account.
After all, these foreign world leaders have decided to use a private American company as a platform. If they don't like it they should simply build their own.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#285Oh that's just a twitter way of collecting more data. They're assholes.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
You can't talk about policy (in a meaningful way) with memes. Our discourse is already much too simple. If any group of people needs to be pandered to, then they're clearly not actually interested in politics.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#287I 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…
Twitter doesn't care. They're in the business of collecting data. Now that so many have left, they want their 'opinion' which is really that they thirst for more data.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?
I was struck by the Chinese embassy that got banned a couple months ago. They said that their fight against radical islam is good for uighur women.. which is propaganda but also the exact same propaganda that western interventionists use all the time. One is ok, the other is not.
Of course, Twitter DID take action against a Western leader who was leading an attempted coup, and they got absolutely creamed by the “freedom of speech” folks for doing so. So Twitter has been willing to draw the line for Western leaders as well.
But that raises a good point: if the media outlets in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq invasion (I won’t even mention the 2001 Afghanistan invasion as there just was not the same level of meaningful opposition) had stood up to Bush’s propaganda even with the limp-wristed[0] way Twitter stood up to Trump’s, perhaps we wouldn’t have been dragged so deep into Middle East interventionism to begin with.
[0]It really was.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#289On Twitter you can find promoted full blown propaganda paid for by hostile (to the US at least) state sponsored news agencies and government officials. These same governments ban Twitter in their own countries and would never allow similar content on their own platforms. Twitter's solution here is to insert a tiny "State affiliated" footer text below the account name. Can you imagine in the Cold War-era NBC being all…
Why does it matter if propaganda is coming from a foreign state actor or domestic groups, like activist groups that seek to shut down any opposing views?
Your comment has some unintended irony if taken as a call for action.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#290On Twitter you can find promoted full blown propaganda paid for by hostile (to the US at least) state sponsored news agencies and government officials. These same governments ban Twitter in their own countries and would never allow similar content on their own platforms. Twitter's solution here is to insert a tiny "State affiliated" footer text below the account name. Can you imagine in the Cold War-era NBC being all…
You might want to take a look at Voice of America, a Congress-funded network that broadcasts almost exclusively outside the US as US propaganda: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
I think it's great that, despite censorship, we work hard at providing a reliable source of information throughout the world.