This is laughable. Twitter banned the president of the United States of America. They are not a neutral platform and should be stripped of their section 230 exemptions. They are the last group that should be trying to be the "arbiter or truth". Twitter's culture and actions are so politically slanted in one direction that as an organization it would not know what truth was if it had teeth and bit them.
Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
291–300 of 373 posts
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#292World leaders should not have a forum on Twitter. We have official government channels for that, where other stakeholders in the system provide their input before the message becomes public. If an individual moves into the position of a world leader or equivalent, their account should be frozen until such time that the position ends. This is the only sane policy. Anything else is too dangerous for humanity. Twitter a…
So given the problem of a megaomaniac world leader who wants to unilaterally start a global thermonuclear war... the solution is to have Twitter freeze their accounts? And we're all good to go, no other issues? That's the actual solution that you came up with and think "yep, solved it!"?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#293World leaders in developed countries should not be depending on Twitter or private media companies at all. There is no good reason why the President of the United States cannot publish his (in the case of Trump, ill-formed) thoughts directly to whitehouse.gov. We should demand and expect that governments publish directly to the web in an immutable way that is archived to satisfy our duty to history. Twitter made thin…
“(in the case of Trump, ill-formed)” well at least you’re not trying to hide your lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Right. VOA is pretty much a mini American BBC nowadays.
I think people that call it propaganda are judging it based on the Cold War era VOA.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This seems pretty elitist. I think being able to communicate effectively and concisely is important. When Abraham Lincoln gave his famous speech it was noteworthy for lasting minutes when normally politicians would go on for hours. Many critics said the same thing about the Gettysburg Address as you are saying about memes. For the time, that was so much shorter than a usual speech, it was effectively a sound bite (and hey, people are still talking about it today, wadda ya know?).
If someone can use memes to communicate effectively, awesome. Most people suck at discourse in general, it's not limited to memes.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 sp…
Huh. While I was using Twitter I was mostly exclusively following people I agreed with. I was still angry all the time, because those people were posting stuff like "another cop kills another civilian" or "the US military defended freedumbz by bombing more brown people, yay!".
Following only people you want to chat with doesn't necessarily mean talking about nice things.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's great that, despite censorship, we work hard at providing a reliable source of information throughout the world.
Right. VOA is pretty much a mini American BBC nowadays. I think people that call it propaganda are judging it based on the Cold War era VOA.
The kinds of people who really have a hateboner for VOA tend to be the kinds of people more at home in the cold war anyway.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#298Earlier 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.
> freedom of speech protections exist to protect against this exact sentiment.
Sorry, but that's plainly false. No legal scholar will agree with you.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#299Earlier 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.
The US constitution effectively says that you have complete editorial control over the content of your own website.
Facebook and Twitter run websites.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This seems pretty elitist. I think being able to communicate effectively and concisely is important. When Abraham Lincoln gave his famous speech it was noteworthy for lasting minutes when normally politicians would go on for hours. Many critics said the same thing about the Gettysburg Address as you are saying about memes. For the time, that was so much shorter than a usual speech, it was effectively a sound bite (an…
If elitism is the opposite of populism, then so be it.
I also don't agree that the Gettysburg address is equivalent to speaking on Twitter.