Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 373 posts

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#361

Post by loveistheanswer »

weakfish wrote: post #360
loveistheanswer wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've stated what you think freedom of speech isn't , but can you actually define what you think freedom of speech is ? It's funny how this mantra of "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences of speech" seemingly originated at precisely the same time that big tech corporations and social media mobs began punishing people en masse for lawful (but politically incorrect) speech. It seems like doublespeak really.…

I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding. Source: political science undergraduate Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.

Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech.

Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences", except from the Church.

After all, heretics and blasphemers were indeed free to say what they wanted to say (they had larynxes, after all), but they were not free from the consequences of their speech.

Please do tell me what you think freedom of speech is, in your own words, when you are at a keyboard.

In my own words, freedom of speech is an ideal, like the ideal "that all men are created equal". This ideal seeks to liberate human kind from being systematically punished for expressing offensive ideas, because ever so many of the greatest human revelations were profoundly offensive to society at large at their inception.

"I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more."

-John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#362

Post by 8note »

Judgmentality wrote: post #313
everdrive wrote: post #300

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.

Democracy allows for people to be wrong. Its mechanism for fixing wrong votes is to convince people that they should vote a different way, rather than forcing a new direction on them.

Having disdain for populism is well aligned with democracy. Shooting or torturing populists is not

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#364

Post by rkagerer »

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think world leaders like the US president should use Twitter.

- Unlike traditional media where you have several competing outlets to disseminate your message, everything you put out on that platform is subject to the censorship whims of a single corporation.

- It doesn't feel very presidential. 140 or 280 or whatever characters seems like an artificial cap on what is presumably very important messaging for the country. (You may argue people don't have an appetite for more - I guarantee when politics comes up in conversation over a backyard BBQ most people have a lot more to say than that).

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#365

Post by weakfish »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #361
weakfish wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding. Source: political science undergraduate Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.

Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech. Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of spee…

I think we may actually be on the same side, then - my implication was that America is "freedom from persecution," _not_ freedom from criticism and/or private consequence. When I say _private_ consequence, I primarily mean if you say something that the owner of a restaraunt you dine in does not like, you can get kicked out from that private enterprise, but the government cannot stifle your ability to say the words that got you kicked out nor can you go to jail for face legal action.

TL;DR I believe we may be thinking of different ideas of "consequence" :)

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#366

Post by webmaven »

hooande wrote: post #301
crazygringo wrote: post #196

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…

> 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

There is nothing that requires official communications on Twitter to be exclusive to that platform.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#367

Post by cratermoon »

peteretep wrote: post #344
enkid wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Propaganda" is a loaded term. VOA is historically a very accurate and unbiased (as far as that is possible) source of news. [1] [2] [1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/voice-america-bias-and-reliabi... [2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

The best propaganda is always an excellent and unbiased news source on _most_ topics.

It's possible to be completely accurate and show no obvious bias, but be propaganda by careful choice of what is and is not mentioned and how it is framed. The best propaganda doesn't isn't obviously propagandistic, it simply sets the agenda according to a pre-determined point of view.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#368

Post by foobiter »

ufmace wrote: post #161
foobiter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

marjorie taylor green requires more detail than simply “a republican congresswoman” - she’s blamed forest fires on jewish space lasers, among other racist, homophobic, and transphobic conspiracy theories

Is there like a guide somewhere telling people to bring up some specific incident every time a particular UnPerson's name is brought up? I swear there's a few dozen people for which, as soon as their name is mentioned, a dozen green accounts will suddenly post what somebody has determined is "critical context" under which we are supposed to see them. Okay she made one silly facebook post that doesn't really quite say…

maybe i should have brought up the time she shouted at a teenage survivor of a school shooting in public instead

of the time she called a fellow representative a member of isis

or the time she mocked another representatives transgender child

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#369

Post by proc0 »

tacostakohashi wrote: post #146

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'm not a fan of Twitter but it's definitely not just free copy for them; it's like a new communication tech has been invented (i.e. telegram -> phone) but this time it did not have immediate military application (I guess) and government wasn't the one doing the research and unfortunately the tech didn't become as open as the Internet or phone lines. My guess would be that large social media platforms should be part of telecomms now. Calling someone is not as common as it used to, it's now all SM.

Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders

#370

Post by KoftaBob »

phone8675309 wrote: post #42
KoftaBob wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, for any politicians Twitter account, it should hide follower count, and for all their tweets, it shouldn’t allow likes/retweets/replies. Essentially their accounts should serve strictly as a broadcast of info, and nothing more.

By "shouldn't allow likes/retweets/replies" do you mean by the politician or by the followers of the politician?

The followers of the politician. In other words, the ability to like/retweet/reply to the politician's tweets should be disabled.

Their tweets should be strictly treated like a one-way broadcast for them to convey info to their constituents.

Post reply on HN