4 ms·

Show off those arms too much and regulation will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Just because Washington has been mostly hands off doesn't mean that wil

Show off those arms too much and regulation will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Just because Washington has been mostly hands off doesn't mean that will continue.

Jtsummers 9y ago
What do you think Washington would do? What power do you think they hold over Twitter in this case?
- 013a 9y ago
  What would Washington do if they passed this bill and Twitter said "No, we aren't following it"? Fines. Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives. So that's the worst case; the reality will be somewhere between that and doing nothing. Within the bounds of the Constitution, Washington can regulate however its people's representatives see fit. Over the past 20 years, most people have sided with companies like Google and Facebook because they produce products that are amazing and addicting. This tide is changing; their products are becoming less and less novel, and its becoming increasingly apparent that horribly few of these companies act with any sense of ethical responsibility or discretion.
  - stanmancan 9y ago
    I can’t help but think the better option would be a bill saying that POTUS needs to stay off social media, no?
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      He also has freedom of speech.
      - stanmancan 9y ago
        Saying the POTUS can't use twitter is not taking away their freedom of speech -- it's putting controls around what mediums they're allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. Kinda like how they're not supposed to run their own mail server. Do you really think it's in the nations best interest that _Twitter_ is being treated as an official source of news from the POTUS?
        Karunamon 9y ago
        I think it’s absolutely in the nations best interest that the president has a way to get his message out directly without filtering by the corporate media. It’s a lot harder to misconstrue someone’s words when anyone can look at them (and better yet- passively see them, rather than having to go looking) Whether Twitter is the best medium for that is another question, given the character limits and demonstrated unprofessional behavior by the platform owner. I bet his account gets a lot more exposure there than a page on whitehouse.gov would.
      - HumbleGamer 9y ago
        And, possibly moreso than anyone else, the responsibility for the actions caused by his words. Freedom of speech is all good until you start yelling "Bomb" on an airplane. This guy is possibly talking us ALL into a nuclear war. I dont know about you, but I don't like being forced into the next persons fight becuase they couldnt shut their mouth, boss, mayor, friend, or Trump...
        Karunamon 9y ago
        This is not a realistic fear. Nobody’s going to war over a tweet.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives. I think Google's managing director in Brazil was arrested a couple times for refusing to give some information to Brazilian law enforcement or refusing to remove some content.

Show off those arms too much and regulation will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Just because Washington has been mostly hands off doesn't mean that will continue.

Jtsummers 9y ago

What do you think Washington would do? What power do you think they hold over Twitter in this case?

013a 9y ago
What would Washington do if they passed this bill and Twitter said "No, we aren't following it"? Fines. Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives. So that's the worst case; the reality will be somewhere between that and doing nothing. Within the bounds of the Constitution, Washington can regulate however its people's representatives see fit. Over the past 20 years, most people have sided with companies like Google and Facebook because they produce products that are amazing and addicting. This tide is changing; their products are becoming less and less novel, and its becoming increasingly apparent that horribly few of these companies act with any sense of ethical responsibility or discretion.
- stanmancan 9y ago
  I can’t help but think the better option would be a bill saying that POTUS needs to stay off social media, no?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    He also has freedom of speech.
    - stanmancan 9y ago
      Saying the POTUS can't use twitter is not taking away their freedom of speech -- it's putting controls around what mediums they're allowed to exercise their freedom of speech. Kinda like how they're not supposed to run their own mail server. Do you really think it's in the nations best interest that _Twitter_ is being treated as an official source of news from the POTUS?
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        I think it’s absolutely in the nations best interest that the president has a way to get his message out directly without filtering by the corporate media. It’s a lot harder to misconstrue someone’s words when anyone can look at them (and better yet- passively see them, rather than having to go looking) Whether Twitter is the best medium for that is another question, given the character limits and demonstrated unprofessional behavior by the platform owner. I bet his account gets a lot more exposure there than a page on whitehouse.gov would.
    - HumbleGamer 9y ago
      And, possibly moreso than anyone else, the responsibility for the actions caused by his words. Freedom of speech is all good until you start yelling "Bomb" on an airplane. This guy is possibly talking us ALL into a nuclear war. I dont know about you, but I don't like being forced into the next persons fight becuase they couldnt shut their mouth, boss, mayor, friend, or Trump...
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        This is not a realistic fear. Nobody’s going to war over a tweet.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > Deploying US Marshals to their headquarters and server farms. Arresting high level executives. I think Google's managing director in Brazil was arrested a couple times for refusing to give some information to Brazilian law enforcement or refusing to remove some content.