4 ms·
Umm first of all social media is nothing like a park (public or private), and government has a lot of ammunition to fire at them if they decide to play politics
by rubber_duck 6y ago
Umm first of all social media is nothing like a park (public or private), and government has a lot of ammunition to fire at them if they decide to play politics.
When companies start getting hijacked by hipster activists, entering political arena and stepping on policy maker toes they are going to get smacked down - and rightfully so - the last thing we need is some anonymous nobody from twitter deciding what to fact check and how to frame it on what's presented as a public communication channel for the elected official.
If twitter was heavily right wing and they did this to Obama the same people cheering them on now would be up in arms - this is just partisan BS.
- pjc50 6y ago> has a lot of ammunition to fire at them if they decide to play politics. In a very literal sense. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-minneapolis-police-protest-update/reuters-camera-crew-hit-by-rubber-bullets-as-more-journalists-attacked-at-u-s-protests-idUKKBN237052 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-minneapolis-police-protest...
- rubber_duck 6y agoNot really - journalist are established in that area, they are used to such risks/treatment and they do have protection in principle because their work is seen as valuable (in a democracy). I don't have any problem with people having opinions and writing opinion peaces. Social networks stamping information is more like your ISP throttling traffic from Netflix because it doesn't like the fact that you aren't using their streaming service - it's funny that the "it's a private service" crowd are probably the same people that want net neutrality laws against that. In my view they should both just be dumb pipes with filters to prevent illegal use, the rest just puts too much power in the wrong place because of the monopolistic nature of social networks.