4 ms·

I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is de

by js8 6y ago

I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.

leereeves 6y ago
It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        My opinion isn’t binding and I haven’t developed a position; more to the point, if they were a common carrier, I don’t see how their terms of service and code of conduct would not be applicable all the same. Common carriers can still refuse service to specific offending individuals if not the government as collective entity, for no reason, or for cause, such as violations of company policy or terms of service.
        throw0101a 6y ago
        Twitter is a private company, which uses private servers and network switches, that communicates with ISPs and their private equipment, to send the information we're talking about. Radio and TV use public resources (EM waves), to which they have been granted a government license, to transmit information, so the government can ask them to do certain things at times.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        And the phone company? Aren't they a private company that uses private wires?
        throw0101a 6y ago
        Most phone companies (and cables) were granted local monopolies that allowed them to build out infrastructure and amortized the cost over decades. (Actually, in the US, there was only a phone company for a long time: AT&T.) These were regulated monopolies.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        Which came first, the monopoly or the regulatory capture?
      - ovi256 6y ago
        Making them a common carrier would solve almost all issues, except complaints from some groups that some other groups are allowed to use Twitter to spread their own political speech.
    - taneq 6y ago
      I thought they'd basically won the war on net neutrality and it was no longer any form of common carrier?
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
If anything, public figures should have LESS permissions than other citizens. The main different between acting as a public figure VS a private citizen is that you represent (and influence) other people.
- torgian 6y ago
  It boggles my mind that as a member of the military , I was more restricted in what I could do and say than our public figures are.... at least it seemed like that.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > as a member of the military, I was more restricted in what I could do and say than our public figures are As it should be. The military reports to our civilian leadership. The latter constrains the former. That, almost by definition, leaves the latter less constrained than the former.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. >The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. but there are also views about what responsibilities are in relation to these kinds of figures. One could easily conceive of the responsibility would be to not let the authoritarian (a dictator) broadcast because their authority is illegitimate. So not let them broadcast at all on your service, whether they hold to the rules or not. But let the democratically chosen leader broadcast, whether they hold to the service terms or not, because of needs to serve user base of democratically chosen leader's constituency. That said I personally believe in shutting him down, but I can conceive of lots of different viewpoints which might find him reprehensible but still consider that it is needed to let him have access, although probably the real viewpoint is "show me the money!"

by js8 6y ago

leereeves 6y ago

It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.

aspenmayer 6y ago
Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
- leereeves 6y ago
  > A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        My opinion isn’t binding and I haven’t developed a position; more to the point, if they were a common carrier, I don’t see how their terms of service and code of conduct would not be applicable all the same. Common carriers can still refuse service to specific offending individuals if not the government as collective entity, for no reason, or for cause, such as violations of company policy or terms of service.
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        Twitter is a private company, which uses private servers and network switches, that communicates with ISPs and their private equipment, to send the information we're talking about. Radio and TV use public resources (EM waves), to which they have been granted a government license, to transmit information, so the government can ask them to do certain things at times.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        And the phone company? Aren't they a private company that uses private wires?
        throw0101a 6y ago
        Most phone companies (and cables) were granted local monopolies that allowed them to build out infrastructure and amortized the cost over decades. (Actually, in the US, there was only a phone company for a long time: AT&T.) These were regulated monopolies.
        aspenmayer 6y ago
        Which came first, the monopoly or the regulatory capture?
    - ovi256 6y ago
      Making them a common carrier would solve almost all issues, except complaints from some groups that some other groups are allowed to use Twitter to spread their own political speech.
  - taneq 6y ago
    I thought they'd basically won the war on net neutrality and it was no longer any form of common carrier?

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

If anything, public figures should have LESS permissions than other citizens. The main different between acting as a public figure VS a private citizen is that you represent (and influence) other people.

torgian 6y ago
It boggles my mind that as a member of the military , I was more restricted in what I could do and say than our public figures are.... at least it seemed like that.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > as a member of the military, I was more restricted in what I could do and say than our public figures are As it should be. The military reports to our civilian leadership. The latter constrains the former. That, almost by definition, leaves the latter less constrained than the former.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. >The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. but there are also views about what responsibilities are in relation to these kinds of figures. One could easily conceive of the responsibility would be to not let the authoritarian (a dictator) broadcast because their authority is illegitimate. So not let them broadcast at all on your service, whether they hold to the rules or not. But let the democratically chosen leader broadcast, whether they hold to the service terms or not, because of needs to serve user base of democratically chosen leader's constituency. That said I personally believe in shutting him down, but I can conceive of lots of different viewpoints which might find him reprehensible but still consider that it is needed to let him have access, although probably the real viewpoint is "show me the money!"