Live data from Hacker News

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

thehill.com

291–300 of 312 posts

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#291
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. He can't stop you from saying what you want to say. He can stop you from saying what you want to say on an official Federal government platform . For that matter, many employers can do that. I can say whatever I please, but not with my company name on it.

Exactly, can't believe so many people here lacking basic understanding of professionalism. You can't use office account to deliver your personal message.

We'd need a specific example to determine if the communications were a personal message, raw data supporting climate change or (unlikely) 5 sigma confidence level results in say a temperature trend.

Personally, I struggle with the idea that scientists working for the federal government have to report to or be muzzled by the current administration. I see these people as working for the country not for the administration but I'm naive and optimistic in general so I'm sure many people will point out that it would be a crazy way to run a country.

In the Canadian case, scientist needed to request permission to attend conferences months in advance and, from what I understand, if there was the least chance of bad press coverage from the scientific results being presented, then the person was not allowed to attend. I believe there was a similar muzzling of attempts to publish in peer-reviewed papers. That sort of thing is clearly not acceptable behaviour for a government administration. Government organizations like the EPA are not companies trying to maximize profit by selling a widget, they are researchers and regulators trying to determine the best path for everyone in the country with respect to economics, health, and environment.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#292
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money _is_ influence. How about letting the media stand on it's own legs? Why should NPR be special? Even their name is a dishonest appeal to authority. It's not random that they have show titles like "Talk of the Nation". As far as I know, NYT does not receive public funding, but I think this window is instructive on how the "elite" media views themselves: http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C…

That's exactly why you need public media. Not everybody can afford NYT

But PBS/NPR are "public" only in the sense they are publicly funded. They aren't balanced in any way, nor do they invite public participation.

What would you consider to be the "conservative" equivalent of the following?:

- To The Contrary

- Latino USA

- Frontline (political topics)

- Democracy Now!

- Charlie Rose

- Tavis Smiley

- John Lewis - Get in the Way

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#293
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes" is one of the same sources that thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide, then you have nothing to say. I'm not going to say I agree there were illegal votes, but I am holding out for better evidence.

Flip a coin 4 times, all 4 times the coin lands on heads. You: "Statistics is bullshit."

Flip a coin 10,000 times, 8200 times it lands on heads.

You: "The coin is not imbalanced nor is the process gamed in any way."

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but if a geographical area of your country produces most of your food, and contains nearly all of your natural resources, you can't look at the citizens who choose to live there and say "sorry guys, there's too few of you so we're going to ignore your wants and desires". Such is the path to resentment, secession and violent revolution.

>Perhaps, but if a geographical area of your country produces most of your food, As a matter of fact, much to most of our food comes from California. >Such is the path to resentment, secession and violent revolution. Why is ignoring the majority of the people, who produce 2/3 of the GDP, not considered a path to resentment, secession, and violent revolution? That is, why should we in the sane, tolerant, productive, n…

> As a matter of fact, much to most of our food comes from California.

Nope. It's 11% by value.[1]

The breadbasket of America is still keeping its namesake, then Texas produces the most beef.

[1]http://beef2live.com/story-states-produce-food-value-0-10725...

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Trump is the boss. It's the same way that most companies don't allow random department heads to speak directly to investors, but force everything to be filtered through the board meeting notes, and SEC filings. What the EPA reports may be factual, but the presentation of facts, when they are spoken of, and how often, are all political practices. Is it important for the EPA to tweet daily "hey guys, you know c…

>Because Trump is the boss. Democratic countries have representatives, not bosses. This includes for the civil service.

I think you must be taking boss to mean something differently from me.

Your direct report, is your boss regardless of if you are in civil service or not---often your 'boss' is not an elected official, but part of the bureaucracy.

Your bosses direct report is also your boss (transitive law), and so on till you hit the pinnacle of the executive branch---Trump.

I'm not saying he's some kind of mob-leader boss.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#297

I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…

Meta: people say they keep looking for explanations. Explanations are offered. Then the explanations are downvoted and an argument ensues. It may be fine that you don't understand or like the explanations, but saying "I really don't understand X" and then punishing anybody who tries to explain it isn't much of a way to have a reasonable public discourse. (This wasn't directed at you, just at the community at large. I…

they probably disagree

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flip a coin 4 times, all 4 times the coin lands on heads. You: "Statistics is bullshit."

Flip a coin 10,000 times, 8200 times it lands on heads. You: "The coin is not imbalanced nor is the process gamed in any way."

Not a very reasonable analogy at all. Of course you and your ilk need to resort to such nonsense to waste everyone's time.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#299
post #32

I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it. I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inaugu…

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size? To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

Who gives a shit? Do ambassadors actually DO anything?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the vote totals you'll see that far more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats and that far more Democrats voted against it than Republicans. The Democrats did not suddenly decide to support civil rights since the majority of the opponents of such policies were Democrats. Much of the violence against blacks you see from that era were committed by Democrats. I seriously doubt…

He literally just explained this. Democrats then are not the same Democrats now. The people (southern whites) that committed violence against blacks who were democrats back then, are very, very likely to be Republican these days.

So, the rest of the Republicans across the country outside of the South that voted for Civil Rights just went along with this change and accepted the role of being the "racist" party? Because that's the claim.
Post reply on HN