4 ms·
> The result is a social force– an adjustment to incentives— that keeps conversations on-topic and civil. Really, I think it's missing the point to frame it as
by akersten 7y ago
> The result is a social force– an adjustment to incentives— that keeps conversations on-topic and civil. Really, I think it's missing the point to frame it as a tool for silencing critics with dissenting opinions, instead of a tool for silencing people who want to call you an ${inflammatory_statement} in your thread about a cake you baked today.
If that's really what it is, let's disable it for accounts representing government entities and elected officials. Seem like a good compromise?
- tbabb 7y agoThere's legal precedent that public figures blocking constituents on social media amounts to a first amendment violation, so that idea may actually hold water. Naturally that only applies for government officials; the first amendment doesn't (and shouldn't) prohibit private entities from curating content. Although bad-faith dialogue disruption does happen with political and government officials too, and can be a problem (including potentially a free-speech problem, for those who are drowned out) for different reasons.
- markdown 7y ago> There's legal precedent that public figures blocking constituents on social media amounts to a first amendment violation That's US-only.
- crankylinuxuser 7y agoThere's also the 'Snowden Problem' which is contractors that act on behalf of the feds don't have the same requirements and protections as the feds. And around 95% (my assessment) of 'federal employees' are contractors.