171–180 of 218 posts
We have open standards (W3C recommendations) even, and these protocols can be adopted by the content management system used by House.Gov. Congress Critters need to become part of the Fedi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many times a year do you watch C-SPAN? How often do you browse the press release page for your local elected official, much less someone else's? Whatever you think of this particular Congresswoman, Twitter is one of the largest and most influential outreach platforms. It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." Getting banned from T…
> It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." It's more like getting banned from one radio station in the 1940s and going "Who cares? She can still go on a bunch of other radio stations, and most people are capable of tuning in, if they want to." She's on Facebook. She's on Gab. She's on Parler. She's on Gettr. She went on a cross-count…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many times a year do you watch C-SPAN? How often do you browse the press release page for your local elected official, much less someone else's? Whatever you think of this particular Congresswoman, Twitter is one of the largest and most influential outreach platforms. It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s and saying, "Who cares? There's still newsletters and speaking engagements." Getting banned from T…
> It's like getting banned from radio in the 1940s It'd be like getting banned from one station, perhaps. Radio? To my knowledge the FCC has never banned anyone from the airwaves. This pretense that the big social networks are so big that politicians must be granted access is just poisonous beyond belief to what the internet is. No one is stopping MTG from setting up countless points of her own presence, or sharing l…
It's more like if one company owned a large proportion of radio stations in every town, and that company banned you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also say constituents shouldn't have to rely on for-profit (and in this case objectively harmful to society) advertising platforms in order to hear from elected officials or government. Where I am, Twitter seems to have become the default channel for many kinds of communication, and those of us who don't use it are excluded.
Every member of Congress is provided with their own website, a subdomain of either house.gov or senate.gov, for the entirety of their term. If your representative neglects that website and chooses to communicate through a private outlet instead, that's something to complain to your representative about.
members of congress should not be using commercial social media as their exclusive form of pushing out status updates to the populace. We have open standards (W3C recommendations) even, and these protocols can be adopted by the content management system used by House.Gov. Congress Critters need to become part of the Fedi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure they have to. Gjsman affirmed their right to freedom (they CAN), but would prefer that they exercised that freedom in a certain way (they SHOULD). Believe it or not, government regulations don't have to be the solution to every little thing. See saurik's comment below for more.
I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract. Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if…
You're right, the censorship happened even before that: Twitter's contract that says "you're not allowed to express any of these opinions" is the root of the censorship.
No matter what their politics are, I would hope that all reasonable people can condemn cancel culture, regardless of the political alignment of the person being cancelled. I get a lot of value from Twitter because I follow a few awesomely interesting people, but I could probably get the same effect by bookmarking their blogs. People should have access to all information, and filter for themselves what is trash. I don…
Marjorie Taylor Greene is entitled to create her own Twitter. Not to use someone else’s Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is not a conscious being, and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. I support maximal liberty for humans, and appropriate protection of those humans from corporations as well as the government. Corporations may be collections of people, but they're a lot more than that - which makes them not human - and in any case they are not loci of experience.
By this logic, your family is also not a conscious being and cannot experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed. Or maybe you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend and a group of friends. Are these groups also unable to experience the subjective feeling of being oppressed?
class Corporation : public Person
It's for the same reason mediocre OOP programmers use inheritance to borrow some partial implementation. It gets the job done, even if it doesn't quite fit.
members of congress should not be using commercial social media as their exclusive form of pushing out status updates to the populace. We have open standards (W3C recommendations) even, and these protocols can be adopted by the content management system used by House.Gov. Congress Critters need to become part of the Fedi.
This just pushes censorship down a level, as we found out with Parler and Gab. Remember when Gab used to use Mastodon, and the major app stores told the authors of Mastodon clients that unless they hardcoded a check to prevent their app from connecting to Gab, their apps would be banned?
They (being the House of Representatives) absolutely should own their namespace and operate under 'house.gov'.
Facebook and Twitter could even provide this service, as a commercially managed hosted endeavor (look at how Gmail is white-labeled as "Google Workspace" and sold as a service on a portable domain name).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just pushes censorship down a level, as we found out with Parler and Gab. Remember when Gab used to use Mastodon, and the major app stores told the authors of Mastodon clients that unless they hardcoded a check to prevent their app from connecting to Gab, their apps would be banned?
that's fine. I'd prefer if official (public) business were conducted through public infrastructure through open protocols rather than via commercial walled-gardens. They (being the House of Representatives) absolutely should own their namespace and operate under 'house.gov'. Facebook and Twitter could even provide this service, as a commercially managed hosted endeavor (look at how Gmail is white-labeled as "Google W…