3 ms·

Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut Donald off,

by l_t 9y ago

Thanks for this, seems appropriately cutting. The whole situation has put Twitter in a weird place, and I can understand why they don't want to cut Donald off, but it's clear that this post is just "We don't want to", but with a few paragraphs of spin. I wish they would be more honest about it. Personally, I don't think it should be Twitter's responsibility to censor Trump. He has a way of shoehorning himself into public consciousness, and I think the public (especially the mainstream media) needs to self-censor and stop paying him so much attention. I wouldn't care if Donald tweeted whatever he wants, except that it always seems to end up in the news.

linkregister 9y ago
The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made by the president. “Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage. That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.
- l_t 9y ago
  I don't necessarily think his comments should be ignored, just treated like what they are: childish rants that don't have a strong connection to reality. Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not. It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't. Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I don't think they should be getting rid of him, particularly - like other posters, I think he does more damage to himself politically via tweet than any of his opponents could. But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk. It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.

by l_t 9y ago

linkregister 9y ago

The fact the president of the United States made an inflammatory public statement is news whether you like it or not. Foreign governments make decisions and tailor their own rhetoric based off of the Twitter messages made by the president. “Ignore him and he’ll go away” was fantastic advice I wish the media used in 2015 and 2016; a different candidate would have won the Republican primary were it not for the president’s overwhelming media coverage. That advice no longer holds true. I agree that sensationalizing public statements is destructive to society.

l_t 9y ago
I don't necessarily think his comments should be ignored, just treated like what they are: childish rants that don't have a strong connection to reality. Foreign governments are going to do what they do either way -- we are past the point of pretending that our POTUS isn't a flaming dickhead. By giving him additional attention, we're validating him as an important part of the American dialogue. He should not be that, whether he is the POTUS or not. It's true that because of his position, he is now afforded certain powers that make him difficult to ignore. But I think his nighttime Twitter rants are just "acting out" for attention. If he was 5 years old, we would know to pay attention when he's being serious and ignore him when he's not. But we don't. Honestly, I think at this point we just have to wait it out and try to minimize the damage he does to our society. I can only hope that the experience will be sobering enough to incite actual social change.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I don't think they should be getting rid of him, particularly - like other posters, I think he does more damage to himself politically via tweet than any of his opponents could. But I do think this issue highlights the long-standing tension between platforms-as-utilities (which involve public rights-of-way, so to speak) vs as commercial entities that can choose their customers, or not. The fact that a politician can delete their tweets or block people while ostensibly using Twitter in their official capacity is directly at odds with the happy talk. It's good that Twitter as a commercial entity has brought instant global publication into reality from a technological point of view, but I wish it were a federated protocol instead, that's not subject to the desires of any authority. As long as it's a commercial platform, the need to extract economic rents from it inevitably take priority over ethical questions.