6 ms·

That sounds awfully naive to me. World leaders have all kinds of options for communicating with the public. Official press releases, for example. Press relea

That sounds awfully naive to me. World leaders have all kinds of options for communicating with the public. Official press releases, for example. Press releases are preferable because when they tell falsehoods, they can be fact checked in the press. We have no obligation to allow them to use social networks for propaganda purposes.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it. Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and don't need the corporate media to make decisions for them. I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased.
- metalliqaz 7y ago
  perhaps some people are we know for a fact that most people are susceptible to misinformation and propaganda. the modern advertising industry should be more than enough proof of that
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    So who gets to decide what is misinformation and propaganda? Because it seems liberals want to paint any conservative idea as propaganda, just because it's a different though. From my perspective, and proven via wikileaks, the Democrats have been a propaganda machine, and definitely conspire with the corporate media, but sure, let's target the President.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      Well, since it's Twitter's own platform, and they make the rules, they could just as easily ban someone simply because they don't like them. That's how owning things works.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        Ah yes, so now we'll fallback to they are a private company because there is no other defense. They are free to do whatever they want, they are not free from criticism. That's why I don't deal with Twitter, I support freedom of speech, and clearly they don't. So them, and the Saudi's that own them can go tweet themselves.
        iron0013 7y ago
        It's not a "fallback", I'm pretty sure being a private company is their entire raison d'etre. And, you know, like the sign in every small-town diner says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Which is to say, they can give any reason, or no reason at all, for showing a user the door. That's their prerogative as the owners and operators of a business.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        Right, I'd expect just that from a company where a Saudi prince owns more shares than Jack Dorsey. And I'm from a small town, and I've been to many. I've never seen a sign like that.
        code_duck 7y ago
        Most consumer-oriented businesses ranging from laundromats to coffee shops to bars to diners have signs that say that.
        fhbdukfrh 7y ago
        Except they've worked hard to intentionally become what can be classified as a public broadcast medium. They can try and refuse service but it's unlikely they won't be compelled by the courts or legislation to provide open access. That means thru can't just live with their own rules.
        neetdeth 7y ago
        They can put up any sign they like, but that hasn't been true since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    - nl 7y ago
      (I self-identify as liberal) There are plenty of liberals who should sprout misinformation and should be de-platformed. Many in the anti-vaxxer movement are liberal politically and have caused real harm.
    - loktarogar 7y ago
      I don't see how a sane, rational person could see the unfiltered tweets of the President and still think that he is fit for that job. I especially don't see how someone would chalk it up to democrat propaganda.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    Are you in favor of denying such people the right to vote? Why or why not? If they're too stupid to think for themselves, should they still be able to vote?
- braythwayt 7y ago
  > Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it. Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them. What is changing here is whether you hear from them just because your buddy Ed(wina) thinks they said something amazing, when they have a track record for breaking the Twitter rules. IME, keeping on Twitter's good side is a pretty low bar is you're powerful and well-connected, so you will still hear plenty from the usual suspects. > I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased. Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking, and it involves relying on a very small set of third-party fact-checking organizations. Look it up for yourself.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    > Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them. I was responding to the GP "We have no obligation to allow them to use social networks for propaganda purposes." > Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking Didn't find anything, care to link it? I hope it's not PolitiFact
- billions 7y ago
  Via downvotes HN is making sure your opinion is invalid
brlewis 7y ago
> Press releases are preferable because when they tell falsehoods, they can be fact checked in the press. I would question whether social media posts are immune to fact checking, but you didn't post an official press release, so apparently I can't.
ctdonath 7y ago
The fact checkers are too often biased/liars/propagandists. I want to hear what someone has to say. As an adult I don’t need someone to translate a tweet for me, nor protect me from its contents. Most media is propaganda today; Twitter is the closest to live news we have, and @Jack is eager to end that too.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  If you think Twitter is informative and actual news is all fake news I invite you to in depth fact check 10 pages of news stories and 10 pages of your favorite tweets and tell us how it goes. Blog about what you learn even.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    Ah, the “absurd absolute” tell.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Which fact checkers and news organizations do you think are liars?
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > If you think Twitter is informative and actual news is all fake news That's not what he said. He said he wants to see what people say directly, not filtered through anyone else. Then he can decide for himself what is informative and what is fake news. I feel the same way.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      You are yourself a filter as is every useful aspect of human civilization. A tiny fraction of the sensory data around you becomes your perceptions a microscopic portion thereof is communicated to other people. We filter for quality and 90% of everything is crap or noise. One wouldn't learn physics by seeing what the entire human race had to say on the subject because virtually the whole of humanity knows next to nothing on the topic. We instead filter it by people that are known to be knowledgeable on the topic. People that are paid to teach it, people that work in relevant fields, people that have published papers in journals that themselves act as filters. When people say they prefer twitter it is because given the entire population of users its trivial for any person to find people who reinforce what they already think no matter how silly. If you believe the flat world was farted out by a goat there are fellow goat worshipers that will by happy to make you feel good by expounding on the topic.
m0zg 7y ago
>> That sounds awfully naive to me. but then >> fact checked in the press Now _that_ sounds awfully naive to me. Have you seen the CNN leak that came out the other day? "If Jeff Zucker wants impeachment, there's nothing you can do" - direct quote from a CNN media coordinator. Zucker literally tells everyone to bash Trump all day on the daily 9AM conference call. The "press" isn't there to do journalism anymore.
- metalliqaz 7y ago
  The world doesn't revolve around cable television. Pick up a newspaper.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    You think newspapers are any different?
lm28469 7y ago
That, and since politics became social media's plague I don't feel like things improved at all. Now everyone is living in their small make belief bubble at either end of the political spectrum, completely isolated from any kind of meaningful discussions, it breeds mob mentality, hate and conflicts. I don't need to see Trump's idiotic personal attacks on other world leaders or AOC twitting insipid things like "Tax the rich." to farm virtual internet points, all of it is 100% meaningless and has 0 political interest. It's world politics, not a reddit thread were everyone talks about his favorite marvel superhero for fuck's sake. Just have a look at any of Trump's twit comments, it looks like a parody. We're not that far from "Rich men bad", "Criminal bad", "Tax bad", "Wall good", "Terrorist bad", "Health good": it's level 0 of politics and not too far from level 0 of communication.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it. Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to make decisions for themselves, and don't need the corporate media to make decisions for them. I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased.

metalliqaz 7y ago
perhaps some people are we know for a fact that most people are susceptible to misinformation and propaganda. the modern advertising industry should be more than enough proof of that
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  So who gets to decide what is misinformation and propaganda? Because it seems liberals want to paint any conservative idea as propaganda, just because it's a different though. From my perspective, and proven via wikileaks, the Democrats have been a propaganda machine, and definitely conspire with the corporate media, but sure, let's target the President.
  - iron0013 7y ago
    Well, since it's Twitter's own platform, and they make the rules, they could just as easily ban someone simply because they don't like them. That's how owning things works.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      Ah yes, so now we'll fallback to they are a private company because there is no other defense. They are free to do whatever they want, they are not free from criticism. That's why I don't deal with Twitter, I support freedom of speech, and clearly they don't. So them, and the Saudi's that own them can go tweet themselves.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        It's not a "fallback", I'm pretty sure being a private company is their entire raison d'etre. And, you know, like the sign in every small-town diner says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Which is to say, they can give any reason, or no reason at all, for showing a user the door. That's their prerogative as the owners and operators of a business.
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        Right, I'd expect just that from a company where a Saudi prince owns more shares than Jack Dorsey. And I'm from a small town, and I've been to many. I've never seen a sign like that.
        code_duck 7y ago
        Most consumer-oriented businesses ranging from laundromats to coffee shops to bars to diners have signs that say that.
        fhbdukfrh 7y ago
        Except they've worked hard to intentionally become what can be classified as a public broadcast medium. They can try and refuse service but it's unlikely they won't be compelled by the courts or legislation to provide open access. That means thru can't just live with their own rules.
        neetdeth 7y ago
        They can put up any sign they like, but that hasn't been true since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  - nl 7y ago
    (I self-identify as liberal) There are plenty of liberals who should sprout misinformation and should be de-platformed. Many in the anti-vaxxer movement are liberal politically and have caused real harm.
  - loktarogar 7y ago
    I don't see how a sane, rational person could see the unfiltered tweets of the President and still think that he is fit for that job. I especially don't see how someone would chalk it up to democrat propaganda.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Are you in favor of denying such people the right to vote? Why or why not? If they're too stupid to think for themselves, should they still be able to vote?
braythwayt 7y ago
> Personally, I'd rather hear directly from the person, rather than get someone's spin on it. Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them. What is changing here is whether you hear from them just because your buddy Ed(wina) thinks they said something amazing, when they have a track record for breaking the Twitter rules. IME, keeping on Twitter's good side is a pretty low bar is you're powerful and well-connected, so you will still hear plenty from the usual suspects. > I've seen their fact checking, it's hilariously biased. Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking, and it involves relying on a very small set of third-party fact-checking organizations. Look it up for yourself.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  > Well, that's ridiculously easy on Twitter. Just follow them. I was responding to the GP "We have no obligation to allow them to use social networks for propaganda purposes." > Twitter recently published their rules for fact-checking Didn't find anything, care to link it? I hope it's not PolitiFact
billions 7y ago
Via downvotes HN is making sure your opinion is invalid

brlewis 7y ago

> Press releases are preferable because when they tell falsehoods, they can be fact checked in the press. I would question whether social media posts are immune to fact checking, but you didn't post an official press release, so apparently I can't.

ctdonath 7y ago

The fact checkers are too often biased/liars/propagandists. I want to hear what someone has to say. As an adult I don’t need someone to translate a tweet for me, nor protect me from its contents. Most media is propaganda today; Twitter is the closest to live news we have, and @Jack is eager to end that too.

michaelmrose 7y ago
If you think Twitter is informative and actual news is all fake news I invite you to in depth fact check 10 pages of news stories and 10 pages of your favorite tweets and tell us how it goes. Blog about what you learn even.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Ah, the “absurd absolute” tell.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Which fact checkers and news organizations do you think are liars?
- pdonis 7y ago
  > If you think Twitter is informative and actual news is all fake news That's not what he said. He said he wants to see what people say directly, not filtered through anyone else. Then he can decide for himself what is informative and what is fake news. I feel the same way.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    You are yourself a filter as is every useful aspect of human civilization. A tiny fraction of the sensory data around you becomes your perceptions a microscopic portion thereof is communicated to other people. We filter for quality and 90% of everything is crap or noise. One wouldn't learn physics by seeing what the entire human race had to say on the subject because virtually the whole of humanity knows next to nothing on the topic. We instead filter it by people that are known to be knowledgeable on the topic. People that are paid to teach it, people that work in relevant fields, people that have published papers in journals that themselves act as filters. When people say they prefer twitter it is because given the entire population of users its trivial for any person to find people who reinforce what they already think no matter how silly. If you believe the flat world was farted out by a goat there are fellow goat worshipers that will by happy to make you feel good by expounding on the topic.

m0zg 7y ago

>> That sounds awfully naive to me. but then >> fact checked in the press Now _that_ sounds awfully naive to me. Have you seen the CNN leak that came out the other day? "If Jeff Zucker wants impeachment, there's nothing you can do" - direct quote from a CNN media coordinator. Zucker literally tells everyone to bash Trump all day on the daily 9AM conference call. The "press" isn't there to do journalism anymore.

metalliqaz 7y ago
The world doesn't revolve around cable television. Pick up a newspaper.
- m0zg 7y ago
  You think newspapers are any different?

lm28469 7y ago

That, and since politics became social media's plague I don't feel like things improved at all. Now everyone is living in their small make belief bubble at either end of the political spectrum, completely isolated from any kind of meaningful discussions, it breeds mob mentality, hate and conflicts. I don't need to see Trump's idiotic personal attacks on other world leaders or AOC twitting insipid things like "Tax the rich." to farm virtual internet points, all of it is 100% meaningless and has 0 political interest. It's world politics, not a reddit thread were everyone talks about his favorite marvel superhero for fuck's sake. Just have a look at any of Trump's twit comments, it looks like a parody. We're not that far from "Rich men bad", "Criminal bad", "Tax bad", "Wall good", "Terrorist bad", "Health good": it's level 0 of politics and not too far from level 0 of communication.