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

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#61

Post by jquery » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:37 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…

You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan - http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-w...

So, yes, some posts may be left without an immediate replacement, but it's not cause for panic if the alternative is immediately filling the posts with unqualified campaign donors.

EDIT: These are undisputed facts in response to a hostile question accusing me of being a paid actor (ridiculous, my account is 8 years old) posting things that would be a "crime" in other countries. People down-voting this should check the irony considering they're upset at the President for censorship.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#62

Post by gozur88 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:38 AM UTC

cyberferret wrote: post #35

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...

Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case). A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm. However, In the current case, no one knows who the replacement is, or when he/she will be taking on the role, thus leaving us officially without an ambassador for…

I don't think it actually matters in the short run. Career FSOs do the actual work in embassies, which is why you see big campaign donors and mid-level party hacks appointed as ambassadors to all but the most powerful countries.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#63

Post by 13of40 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:40 AM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #48

whyileft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 larges…

I wonder if we've had mobile phone saturation long enough that they could measure attendance just by looking at cellular data.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#64

Post by codeddesign » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:40 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

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…

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…

Agreed. Anything remotely neutral about the new administration is met with a mob and pitch forks.

Discussion is good. Saying you don't understand because you don't agree with answers is like saying you don't understand why a homosexaul is homosexual.

Last time I checked, that's called "bigotry"

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#65

Post by fpgeek » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:41 AM UTC

loafa wrote: post #59

cyberferret wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my line of business, I get to inherit web and mobile apps from other developers all the time. One thing I never do is to completely shut down the app and take it offline while I scour through the code to ensure everything is ok. Not unless there is a glaring problem or security hole that is already evident. It is ironic that the person giving the orders to restrict his subordinates from tweeting can still continue…

Fair enough, but the EPA twitter account isn't exactly mission-critical for anyone, it can afford to not tweet for a little while. Also I don't think it's particularly ironic that the President of the United States gets certain privileges which his subordinates don't.

Except, in the general case, that isn't true. Many of the Park Service social media accounts that were shut down do disseminate emergency information.

That part of the "shutdown" was rolled back once the issues were understood, but in the interim those kinds of Twitter feeds were pointing people to their Facebook page for up-to-date information. I guess we're lucky that no one included Facebook in the shutdown order and even luckier that there was no relevant emergency while the social media policy was being clarified.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#66

Post by throwaway91111 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:41 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

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…

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…

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the article does not offer any explanation.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#67

Post by convolvatron » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

bluetwo wrote: post #53

hawkice wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the audience for that comment isn't aware of _any_ EPA regulations and has no curiosity about it. They see the EPA not as a complex organization with multiple goals and many tools to help them achieve those goals, but as a part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.

Yep. But the only way to fight bad propaganda is with good questions.

look man. these are job creators. if they want to dump solvents in an estuary (god, who uses words like estuary really), and bootstrap our way to a brighter future including pastel tinted vinyl siding, who are we going to side with? some pinhead whining about some cranes and shit or a red blooded american businessman just trying to help his community?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#68

Post by nether » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:43 AM UTC

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…

Everyone these days is ostensibly "pro-science," just as many anti-vaxxers claim to be "pro-vaccine." The administration merely wants to review the scientific integrity of the EPA's work, and prevent the likelihood of any erroneous, possibly non-scientific data from being spread.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#69

Post by akiselev » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:44 AM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #20

woofyman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president can't issue unconstitutional executive orders but has great powers over the executive branch which this falls under.

He absolutely can, they just might not hold up three years later when it finally makes it to the supreme court (or they might depends on who's there)

Depending on the jurisdiction of the lawsuit, the judge (or panel of judges) will probably have the right to file an injunction which can prevent even the president from doing something. The Republican party got into the habit of using state Attorney Generals to sue the Obama administration and the resulting injunctions drastically slowed or killed some aspects of his policies. You can bet many of the Democratic party AGs are just itching to do the same thing, especially those with political ambition in heavily blue states. I don't know if the President has ever been held in contempt but it's a reliable process for preventing policy implementations.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#70

Post by throwaway91111 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:45 AM UTC

bluetwo wrote: post #53

hawkice wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the audience for that comment isn't aware of _any_ EPA regulations and has no curiosity about it. They see the EPA not as a complex organization with multiple goals and many tools to help them achieve those goals, but as a part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.

Yep. But the only way to fight bad propaganda is with good questions.

Who asks non vetted questions anymore?