311–320 of 373 posts
Simple answer to this entire issue: If it’s not illegal, don’t censor or moderate it in any way. Social media companies like Twitter realize that this is the most reasonable approach, but it effectively removes their ability to manipulate... so of course they continue to censor and moderate in a biased fashion.
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…
What you are asking is for people to shut down their own personal social media accounts when they win an elected position. That doesn't seem like good policy - users will continue to use the same communication channels to their elected representatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you think democracy is fundamentally flawed though, then I guess your point makes more sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier 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…
Twitter is a non-government owned software platform. It makes no sense to use it for exclusive official communications. Because, as we've seen, they can close any account at any time. even the us president Trump in particular basing his presidency around twitter was super stupid. He could have and still can post anything he wants to trump.com, and it will be widely distributed on social media immediately I'm always h…
I can't seem to find the case for treating some users one way, and some users another. Also can't determine how a 'leader' will be concisely defined and vetted.
Is snoop dogg on twitter?
If yes, then your policy is already transparent to me, why can't twitter see it for themselves?
If indeed snoop has been banned for promoting violence, then okay - go all the way - anyone who has ever talked about violent things block them.
I myself might enjoy a portal that has no death, killing, boxing, hockey, fighting... all those things.
Just as I got excited when I saw that fbook was deranking all politics and then in Australia blocked all news - I was like - wow, what a utopia social network - friends and family can see and be seen without all that other stuff!
I have chuckled many times over the years watching twitter dodge and weave as policies shift this way and that - some things that I've already dealt with with open public forums.
I'd say I'm very interested in this one - but the whole phone number for your account thing has basically censored my use of it so I already go elsewhere.
Earlier 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.
See, politicians are for people, not the other way around. They follow people to whatever venue people flock to, in order to be heard better.