In tech communities, we often have discussions/debates about the value and/or necessity of hosting content and data on servers we own, because we fear losing ev

In tech communities, we often have discussions/debates about the value and/or necessity of hosting content and data on servers we own, because we fear losing everything stored on cloud servers beyond our control. The current White House seems to be the very opposite in its lack of qualm or reflection. Which is ironic because the WH has long had a decent software stack (made even better by federal budgets and staffing) to publish, host disseminate, and secure content on servers completely under their control – arguably as close to reliability and digital permanence as the Library of Congress or Internet Archive. I know the federal archivists have logistics and software in place to automatically collect and archive digital content [0]. But that doesn't do much for real-time current announcements made on Twitter or Facebook. In the hypothetical event in which the President posts something that could irrevocably lead to diplomatic disaster and war, it's not impossible to imagine a tech executive, or even low-level employee, having a Vasily Arkhipov moment and making the unilateral decision to censor/ban the president. From the perspective of the White House and the President, of course, it's deeply undesirable to have a main communication channel cut off, especially during an emergency. And yet President Trump has stoked a mindset among the public and media to see his Twitter as the direct feed of executive-level news and decision making, without any concern that Twitter's execs have ultimate veto power over his channel. [0] https://archivesocial.com/whitehouse/ https://archivesocial.com/whitehouse/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov_(vice_admiral)