Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#41

Post by ams6110 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #13

FreakyT wrote: post #3

It's downright impressive how comic-book-evil this administration is. Next up, the white house will presumably be moved to a volcano base with overly large ventilation shafts.

I don't really see evil. I see a combination of incompetence and hard right-wing policy. I really don't like the latter, but at least you can argue it (e.g. pulling out of TPP is a perfectly reasonable position to take). The former is just... ugh. Huge numbers of unfilled positions, firing all the ambassadors with no replacements, completely unqualified cabinet nominees (DeVos, Carson, Perry).

Trump is not hard right-wing. I'm not sure what he is, time will tell, but he's not that.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#42

Post by whyileft » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:49 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #32

cyberferret wrote: post #6

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...

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion.

2. December 3, 2008. That's when that article was published about giving notice and starting to find replacements. Same as every other president does.

3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? I have a really hard time understanding why you would post that link which is specifically framed to spread misinformation as it is about a completely different point in the presidency. Seriously, this is your country. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?

EDIT: I expect a response. You said Obama did the "exact same thing". Which is an outright falsehood and posted an link that is from a different period to intentionally misinform people. In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#43

Post by joshkpeterson » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:50 AM UTC

barney54 wrote: post #28

Avshalom wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> social media policies social media policies is sci-fi way of saying "people saying things" though.

True, but this isn't a case of people speaking from their own point of view. The social media account represent the Departments in an official capacity.

This is great and all, but climate change is going to kill a lot of people so......

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#44

Post by diogenescynic » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:52 AM UTC

rokosbasilisk wrote: post #37

Just to add a reality check, the epa isnt some noble organization , they are highly political and often incompentent. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/...

Regardless, the EPA has done vastly more good than harm[1] and the remedy for bad speech is always more speech--not censorship.

1:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-...

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#45

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:53 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #41

serge2k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see evil. I see a combination of incompetence and hard right-wing policy. I really don't like the latter, but at least you can argue it (e.g. pulling out of TPP is a perfectly reasonable position to take). The former is just... ugh. Huge numbers of unfilled positions, firing all the ambassadors with no replacements, completely unqualified cabinet nominees (DeVos, Carson, Perry).

Trump is not hard right-wing. I'm not sure what he is, time will tell, but he's not that.

I'm guessing mental illness at this point. The unsubstantiated voter fraud accusation is moving me to that conclusion.

We should expect to see more of this, there is no one to moderate his behavior that I can see at this point.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#46

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:53 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #41

serge2k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see evil. I see a combination of incompetence and hard right-wing policy. I really don't like the latter, but at least you can argue it (e.g. pulling out of TPP is a perfectly reasonable position to take). The former is just... ugh. Huge numbers of unfilled positions, firing all the ambassadors with no replacements, completely unqualified cabinet nominees (DeVos, Carson, Perry).

Trump is not hard right-wing. I'm not sure what he is, time will tell, but he's not that.

[deleted]

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#47

Post by oppositelock » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC

shshhdhs wrote: post #5

I was curious if a case could be made for First Amendment rights, but I just re-read it... "Congress shall make no law regarding..." I guess Executive Orders can bypass all of that.

Just like a private company can have speech codes without running afoul of the first amendment, so can the US Government for its employees. That's all it is - not some law, but an employer mandate.

The first amendment applies to law governing speech.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#48

Post by caseysoftware » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

whyileft wrote: post #42

jquery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that…

Except that they stopped giving estimates over 20 years ago:

"For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall but no longer does.

The policy changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington.

But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants and threatened legal action. No lawsuit was filed, but the dispute was enough to get the park service out of the head-counting business."

Ref: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-t...

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#49

Post by craigvn » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #41

serge2k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see evil. I see a combination of incompetence and hard right-wing policy. I really don't like the latter, but at least you can argue it (e.g. pulling out of TPP is a perfectly reasonable position to take). The former is just... ugh. Huge numbers of unfilled positions, firing all the ambassadors with no replacements, completely unqualified cabinet nominees (DeVos, Carson, Perry).

Trump is not hard right-wing. I'm not sure what he is, time will tell, but he's not that.

He appears to be exceptional at one thing, manipulating people. The right wing have been manipulated by Trump for his own agenda, which I suspect is just a lust for power. People seem to miss that Trump is trying to set up a dynasty, he plans after he ends as President to ensure his daughter/son/son-in-law are all succeeding him, like the Bush's or the Kennedy's but much greater.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#50

Post by kafkaesq » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #34

kafkaesq wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new management of the agencies want to review the social media policies. With the aim of installing Orwellian-style thought control practices† at every level, affecting every last publicity statement, blog post, and tweet. You forgot that part. † Based on what his press secretary (and other lackeys) attempted to have us believe about the size of the inaugural day crowds (and the millions of people who voted fraud…

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? I don't see what's Orwellian about it. Presidents have always controlled the official department media their agencies put out.

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how?

It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration attempts to manipulate facts and reality in general that are different.

There's never been an administration (well, maybe in the 19th century; but I mean, not since the dawn of modern journalistic reporting) that blatantly and transparently lied about such publicly known and immediately fact-checkable things as crowd sizes on inaugural day.

I don't see what's Orwellian about it.

This morning the press secretary asked you -- yes, you -- to not see anything wrong with the fact that President still believes that "millions of people voted illegally" in the last election. And that he has "studies and evidence" on which he bases that belief.

You don't see anything Orwellian about that?