9 ms·

Also happening with the National Parks Service [0]. [0] http://gizmodo.com/national-park-service-banned-from-tweeting-after-anti-t-1791449526 http://gizmodo.co

Also happening with the National Parks Service [0]. [0] http://gizmodo.com/national-park-service-banned-from-tweeting-after-anti-t-1791449526 http://gizmodo.com/national-park-service-banned-from-tweetin...

monksy 10y ago
Not sure I disagree with that order. The NPS intentionally retweeted a political statement. (Showing the crowds for Obama's inauguration and Trumps) It was a very stupid thing to do.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Came here to make the same point: It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.
  - iandanforth 10y ago
    NPS is in charge of the National Mall. They are heavily invested in the truth of statements about their work. Just as it was appropriate for intelligence officials to state they believed Russia hacked DNC servers, it is appropriate for the agency in charge to correct, lets be generous, misstatements about how many people attended an event they helped coordinate.
    - monksy 10y ago
      It is incredibly appropriate for the security services to state suspicion/evidence of foreign maleficence. (If it's true.. if it's a political suggestion.. they should be punished for propaganda) Although, Wikileaks has been nothing but consistent in stating it wasn't rush that gave them the leaks. It is fine for NPS to report occurrences. However, it was not fine for them to make a comparison of inaugurations. The offices of the government should and always should remain neutral. They should be judged on doing their job properly. Should the EPA pretend to be Milo on how they think that Trump's/Rep party's ignorance on Global Warming is bad? No they should be advising us on upcoming, and current threads, showing superfund cleanup efforts, creating effective change, etc. It's hard to judge an organization correctly when it's trying to play politics. When you're wrestling with a pig, you're going to both get dirty, but in the end the politican likes it.
      - facetube 10y ago
        Comparing objective reality between two points in time is not partisan. It is factual. It is the truth. If the crowd had been larger than previous years, would you still object?
        monksy 10y ago
        It would suggest trying to win favor. Still poor taste. They stand to gain nothing and loose a lot by making comparisons.
        facetube 10y ago
        They were correcting a factually inaccurate statement made by the President of the United States, using evidence they were in possession of. One must hold truth above abstract concepts like "favor" and "taste".
  - mcphage 10y ago
    Showing the number of people who attended the inauguration is a criticism, all of a sudden? That's some seriously thin skin.
    - xname2 10y ago
      Compare to the former president? Are you even serious?
      - mjmsmith 10y ago
        The former President who never lost his temper over six years of claims that he wasn't an American? Are you paid to be here too?
        xname2 10y ago
        You must be crazy. Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you seriously think an official office account should involve in this?
      - mcphage 10y ago
        Fewer people attended the inauguration. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it's the truth. If your solution to someone sharing the truth is to make them shut up, then you got some serious issues.
        xname2 10y ago
        The point is you can't use an office account to do this. Unbelievable.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- mjmsmith 10y ago
  It's only a "political statement" because the President continually repeats the most obvious lies, to the extent that he appears to be mentally ill. Paul Ryan said today that there was no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud. Since the President still keeps telling obvious lies about the subject, was that a "political statement" on Ryan's part?
- facetube 10y ago
  How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?
  - general_ai 10y ago
    It's a photo that was taken hours before inauguration, which made it look like the grounds were sparsely populated. Also known as "fake news". Here's the Gigapixel during Trump's inauguration speech: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inaugu...
    - sqldba 10y ago
      From that photographic viewpoint I can't compare. We really need a picture from the birds eye view.
      - general_ai 10y ago
        It's pretty clear there are a lot more people than the aforementioned picture shows, though.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's what the pictures and video timelapse from the Washington monument provide—the total viewpoint. This gigapixel from the sidelines is in now way informative as an indicator of total crowd size.
        general_ai 10y ago
- BryantD 10y ago
  Voice of America factchecked the claim that Trump's inauguration was bigger: http://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-size-of-trump-inaugural-crowd/3686759.html http://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-size-of-trump-inaugural-c...

monksy 10y ago

Not sure I disagree with that order. The NPS intentionally retweeted a political statement. (Showing the crowds for Obama's inauguration and Trumps) It was a very stupid thing to do.

Pyxl101 10y ago
Came here to make the same point: It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.
- iandanforth 10y ago
  NPS is in charge of the National Mall. They are heavily invested in the truth of statements about their work. Just as it was appropriate for intelligence officials to state they believed Russia hacked DNC servers, it is appropriate for the agency in charge to correct, lets be generous, misstatements about how many people attended an event they helped coordinate.
  - monksy 10y ago
    It is incredibly appropriate for the security services to state suspicion/evidence of foreign maleficence. (If it's true.. if it's a political suggestion.. they should be punished for propaganda) Although, Wikileaks has been nothing but consistent in stating it wasn't rush that gave them the leaks. It is fine for NPS to report occurrences. However, it was not fine for them to make a comparison of inaugurations. The offices of the government should and always should remain neutral. They should be judged on doing their job properly. Should the EPA pretend to be Milo on how they think that Trump's/Rep party's ignorance on Global Warming is bad? No they should be advising us on upcoming, and current threads, showing superfund cleanup efforts, creating effective change, etc. It's hard to judge an organization correctly when it's trying to play politics. When you're wrestling with a pig, you're going to both get dirty, but in the end the politican likes it.
    - facetube 10y ago
      Comparing objective reality between two points in time is not partisan. It is factual. It is the truth. If the crowd had been larger than previous years, would you still object?
      - monksy 10y ago
        It would suggest trying to win favor. Still poor taste. They stand to gain nothing and loose a lot by making comparisons.
        facetube 10y ago
        They were correcting a factually inaccurate statement made by the President of the United States, using evidence they were in possession of. One must hold truth above abstract concepts like "favor" and "taste".
- mcphage 10y ago
  Showing the number of people who attended the inauguration is a criticism, all of a sudden? That's some seriously thin skin.
  - xname2 10y ago
    Compare to the former president? Are you even serious?
    - mjmsmith 10y ago
      The former President who never lost his temper over six years of claims that he wasn't an American? Are you paid to be here too?
      - xname2 10y ago
        You must be crazy. Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you seriously think an official office account should involve in this?
    - mcphage 10y ago
      Fewer people attended the inauguration. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it's the truth. If your solution to someone sharing the truth is to make them shut up, then you got some serious issues.
      - xname2 10y ago
        The point is you can't use an office account to do this. Unbelievable.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
mjmsmith 10y ago
It's only a "political statement" because the President continually repeats the most obvious lies, to the extent that he appears to be mentally ill. Paul Ryan said today that there was no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud. Since the President still keeps telling obvious lies about the subject, was that a "political statement" on Ryan's part?
facetube 10y ago
How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?
- general_ai 10y ago
  It's a photo that was taken hours before inauguration, which made it look like the grounds were sparsely populated. Also known as "fake news". Here's the Gigapixel during Trump's inauguration speech: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/ http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inaugu...
  - sqldba 10y ago
    From that photographic viewpoint I can't compare. We really need a picture from the birds eye view.
    - general_ai 10y ago
      It's pretty clear there are a lot more people than the aforementioned picture shows, though.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's what the pictures and video timelapse from the Washington monument provide—the total viewpoint. This gigapixel from the sidelines is in now way informative as an indicator of total crowd size.
        general_ai 10y ago
BryantD 10y ago
Voice of America factchecked the claim that Trump's inauguration was bigger: http://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-size-of-trump-inaugural-crowd/3686759.html http://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-size-of-trump-inaugural-c...