4 ms·

> And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it That

> And given that blocking is part and parcel to the app, it would seem like everyone is buying into the terms of the environment when they start using it That isn't how this works. Just because Twitter allows people to block stuff, doesn't mean Trump gets to block stuff. In a "normal" government, they'd pick a vendor with software that would let them make official policy statements in a way that complied with the laws around people having the right to reach out to their government officials. Just 'cause twitter's software lets him do something doesn't make actually doing that thing legal, moral, or ethical. This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right. Put more plainly: The judgement makes perfect sense once you understand that government officials' actions are regulated in ways that private citizens' actions are not. If a government official uses a tool designed for private citizens, his actions may still be restricted compared to what private citizens can legally do.
3pt14159 8y ago
Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Spam and a harassment is a problem. To the extent that's true, they aren't problems that require viewpoint censorship to combat.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No. He can mute them. But they should not be any more inconvenienced than anyone else who follows him.
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    Then they can still respond. I'm no fan of Trump, but I understand wanting to reduce the noise in my Twitter feed.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Right, but he's not going to see it. But regardless of whether or not Trump wants that noise on his twitter feed, he's stuck with it for as long as it's an official government account.
    - abritinthebay 8y ago
      Of course they can - and he can mute them and never see their responses. Practically the same as a block from Trumps point of view but without the legal problem.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  > Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window. That's not how this works. Trump a big boy playing a big boy game now. He can't just block anybody he wants on twitter and expect them to create a new account. What if that twitter handle he blocks is a well known journalist or something? You expect that person to create a new account just to call him out or retweet his stuff? Seriously, spend 5 minutes and think about what you are arguing. You are saying that citizens might need to go into incognito mode to view the presidents posts because the president of the united states blocked their twitter account! Say that out loud and tell me how that isn't scary as hell. Governments should not do that sort of thing. That reads almost like a dystopian future sci-fi novel or something. Yes there are spammers, bots and others and absolutely it is a hard problem to somehow filter out the non-human garbage that gets posted while also fulfilling your ethical and legal obligations to allow all citizens to participate in a democratic government. Who knows if that is even a solvable problem.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  > Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window. The ruling would be completely different if he was still private citizen Trump. He'd be free to block whomever he chose. But he is President Trump and he's the one who chose to make his own private Twitter account function as his Presidential outlet to the world. So, different rules apply. He had a perfectly good presidential Twitter account, but he's the one who chose to not use it. Let the chips fall where they may.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  We have the right to petition our government to redress grievances. As a public official, the bar for harassment is higher - for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Death threats?
    - zaarn 8y ago
      I wonder how many death threats Trump receives over Twitter and if that makes any significant portion of the total amounts of threats. (Plus now you entered the territory of "threaten a public official with death" which gets the high ranking legal authorities into gear)
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        I honestly have no idea; this was a hypothetical specifically meant to address the assertion that "for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment."
  - tekknik 8y ago
    so next democrat president I can write a harassment, err I mean opinion, bot to post useless opinions to everything they say blocking people with real discussion from having their floor time? OK, noted.
    - freeone3000 8y ago
      Yes! You can! Look at the twitter feeds of pretty much any elected official. Automated lobbyists won't have quite the reach of human ones, but it's still a worthwhile endeavor if that's something you care about.

chimeracoder 8y ago

> This judgement makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable when you remember that technology is a mere tool designed to serve humans. Just cause you can do something in a tool doesn't make it right. Put more plainly: The judgement makes perfect sense once you understand that government officials' actions are regulated in ways that private citizens' actions are not. If a government official uses a tool designed for private citizens, his actions may still be restricted compared to what private citizens can legally do.

3pt14159 8y ago

Oh common. Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Spam and a harassment is a problem. To the extent that's true, they aren't problems that require viewpoint censorship to combat.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No. He can mute them. But they should not be any more inconvenienced than anyone else who follows him.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Then they can still respond. I'm no fan of Trump, but I understand wanting to reduce the noise in my Twitter feed.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Right, but he's not going to see it. But regardless of whether or not Trump wants that noise on his twitter feed, he's stuck with it for as long as it's an official government account.
  - abritinthebay 8y ago
    Of course they can - and he can mute them and never see their responses. Practically the same as a block from Trumps point of view but without the legal problem.
spookthesunset 8y ago
> Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window. That's not how this works. Trump a big boy playing a big boy game now. He can't just block anybody he wants on twitter and expect them to create a new account. What if that twitter handle he blocks is a well known journalist or something? You expect that person to create a new account just to call him out or retweet his stuff? Seriously, spend 5 minutes and think about what you are arguing. You are saying that citizens might need to go into incognito mode to view the presidents posts because the president of the united states blocked their twitter account! Say that out loud and tell me how that isn't scary as hell. Governments should not do that sort of thing. That reads almost like a dystopian future sci-fi novel or something. Yes there are spammers, bots and others and absolutely it is a hard problem to somehow filter out the non-human garbage that gets posted while also fulfilling your ethical and legal obligations to allow all citizens to participate in a democratic government. Who knows if that is even a solvable problem.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
> Spam and a harassment is a problem. Let the people he blocks make a new account to follow him or open an incognito window. The ruling would be completely different if he was still private citizen Trump. He'd be free to block whomever he chose. But he is President Trump and he's the one who chose to make his own private Twitter account function as his Presidential outlet to the world. So, different rules apply. He had a perfectly good presidential Twitter account, but he's the one who chose to not use it. Let the chips fall where they may.
freeone3000 8y ago
We have the right to petition our government to redress grievances. As a public official, the bar for harassment is higher - for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Death threats?
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I wonder how many death threats Trump receives over Twitter and if that makes any significant portion of the total amounts of threats. (Plus now you entered the territory of "threaten a public official with death" which gets the high ranking legal authorities into gear)
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      I honestly have no idea; this was a hypothetical specifically meant to address the assertion that "for the President, I don't believe anything sent over twitter could be harassment."
- tekknik 8y ago
  so next democrat president I can write a harassment, err I mean opinion, bot to post useless opinions to everything they say blocking people with real discussion from having their floor time? OK, noted.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    Yes! You can! Look at the twitter feeds of pretty much any elected official. Automated lobbyists won't have quite the reach of human ones, but it's still a worthwhile endeavor if that's something you care about.