321–330 of 373 posts
What the fuck? In what universe are the political hot takes, memes, and sniping on Twitter considered "discourse"? And in what universe is this considered healthy public conversation? Do people actually think Twitter is in any way a good medium for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sa…
That's american-on-american, I was talking about geopolitical interests. I saw reports of posts from air force bases supporting our attempted coup in Bolivia, for example.
Earlier 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.
Shes has only been removed from twitter for spreading false information. Her free speech has not been violated.
Similarly, if you would ban someone for repeatedly spreading misinformation, you should ban world leaders. They should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Stop creating platforms for despots.
Earlier 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?
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…
Live means politicians will mispeak and can be interrupted before getting their message across.
I've been thinking about these things and twitter for the past few months, and I wonder.. 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, boxin…
fine to disagree, just not sure if others know enough about the comment to not disagree ignorantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It seems pretty odd you have such a disdain for populism, but I'm guessing you believe in democracy. If most people prefer to participate that way and vote as such, are you saying that the people are wrong? Because the whole point of democracy is letting the people decide for themselves what they want. If you think democracy is fundamentally flawed though, then I guess your point makes more sense.
I believe populism can be quite bad, which is part of why the founding fathers designed a representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy. They were all well schooled in Greek and Roman history, and were afraid of the demagogues of Athens, and of other Greek city states. They believed that the will of the masses could be ignorant and capricious, and should be moderated by wiser more responsible representatives. Of course, they believed that the masses must have some say, (as do I) but that listening to every popular whim may not be the best thing for our country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Wouldn't the hosting company take down his server?