3 ms·

Sorry that's just wrong. If Twitter bans you there's no were like Twitter you can go. Twitter has become the communications platform for public persons to reach

Sorry that's just wrong. If Twitter bans you there's no were like Twitter you can go. Twitter has become the communications platform for public persons to reach their audience. It you think it's on par with other platforms you're just uneducated.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
About 80% of the US adult population doesn't use Twitter. I agree that there's no direct alternative to Twitter, and that does matter, but the idea that you have no choice but to be on Twitter just seems empirically untrue.
- username90 6y ago
  Close to every single journalist uses Twitter though. Most companies requires them to do it. So if you want to reach journalist you use Twitter. Twitter banning you thus greatly limits your ability to talk to the press.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > Close to every single journalist uses Twitter though This isn't true, that's just your impression from within the twitter bubble. Even if it were true, you can easily contact journalists through many avenues, being easy to reach is part of the job description. Getting banned from twitter is a totally unimportant internet triviality.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      If you think Twitter isn't the most important Journalistic tool nowadays you're living in a cave. It is. There's literally no way to get more accurate news faster, by following sources you trust.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > If you think Twitter isn't the most important Journalistic tool nowadays you're living in a cave. It is. Twitter is the most important journalistic tool? Not e-mail? Not end-to-end encrypted chat services? The entertainment website made up of mostly celebrity gossip, memes and culture war propaganda? I think you're the one living in a cave my friend, a cave built, owned and operated by twitter. Just because it's popular with many journalists doesn't mean its important. There's no doubt there are some amazing journalists who use twitter at some points during their day, but the overwhelming sum of what goes on twitter can hardly be considered "journalism". > There's literally no way to get more accurate news faster, by following sources you trust. That's your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who would say using twitter as your primary news source is a terrible idea. News on the internet is a billion dollar business, twitter is just one of many innumerable sources of real-time news on the internet.
        WClayFerguson 6y ago
        Point #1) Sure you can say email is as important as twitter. Good catch. Although taking my words too literally. But none of the other technology artifacts rank even close. And BTW if Google started censoring emails they'd be in BIG trouble just like Twitter is. Thanks for helping prove my point. Point #2) Twitter itself is not a news "source". News Networks however ARE. News is reliable on Twitter because you follow only who you trust, and you make the assumption that you're feed isn't being monkeyed with by Twitter. You're out of touch if you don't realize you can get more accurate news faster on Twitter than thru News Networks. Trust me on that. Plus what you get from the networks is all propaganda anyway, and generally not worth my time.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > But none of the other technology artifacts rank even close Google end-to-end encryption journalism. e2e encrypted services keep journalists and their sources alive, it far outranks the petty trivialities of twitter. > News is reliable on Twitter because you follow only who you trust Every social media website has a "follow" feature, nothing is special about twitter that makes the publishers more trustworthy than any other social network. > You're out of touch if you don't realize you can get more accurate news faster on Twitter than thru News Networks. Trust me on that. I don't need to trust you, we can agree to disagree on your opinion that twitter is a good place to get news.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  That 80% number is meaningless. Back when only 20% of people had internet or email or cell phone, would you have said it's ok for the internet, email, or phone company to be able to cut service if someone uttered the words "all lives matter" and offended the employees of the monopoly. It's silly. You lack perspective. Every legislator, politician, celebrity, and public figure is now using Twitter is their primary way to reach audience for written communications...except the banned ones.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    The attention of other people on twitter is not a utility, and I think comparisons to utilities like the phone network cloud the debate.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Well it does take a certain level of intelligence to even get what the debate is even about doesn't it?
      - mattnewton 6y ago
        I'm not trying to tone police here, but I do think the hn guidelines are helpful in keeping conversations useful. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        WClayFerguson 6y ago
        go back to your safe space.
ravi-delia 6y ago
Honestly I just don't see that. For one, if you're a public figure that Twitter bans you can just maintain a website and your followers will spread the word. If you aren't a public figure, there are plenty of alternatives that serve just fine. More important however is the issue that Twitter can only block access to Twitter. That it is difficult to switch ISPs only matters because with few alternatives an ISP blocking a site, or you canceling your contract, would lead to that site being inaccessible. The general policy 'companies shouldn't use their position to alter access to other companies' is more defensible than 'popular social media has to pretend to be a utility for a given value of popular and social media'.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  It sounds like you just have a fundamental disagreement that Twitter has become the primary backbone for public communications between powerful people and their audience (for which there is no viable replacement because of Network Effect), as well as for real-time messaging between individuals and groups. Until you acknowledge that fact, you won't 'see' a problem.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    Could you give a concrete example of a scenario where someone is left without any method of public communication without Twitter? Sure it's easier, and other sites might not give the same free random updrafts of popularity, but if people want to hear your message you just don't need Twitter.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      If phone companies were allowed to cut service to people based on the political leanings of phone calls, then would you be saying: "It's ok, people can just find another phone company or use emails for communication, when their phone is cut"? You don't think Twitter is analogous to phone service. I do. That's the disconnect here.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

About 80% of the US adult population doesn't use Twitter. I agree that there's no direct alternative to Twitter, and that does matter, but the idea that you have no choice but to be on Twitter just seems empirically untrue.

username90 6y ago
Close to every single journalist uses Twitter though. Most companies requires them to do it. So if you want to reach journalist you use Twitter. Twitter banning you thus greatly limits your ability to talk to the press.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > Close to every single journalist uses Twitter though This isn't true, that's just your impression from within the twitter bubble. Even if it were true, you can easily contact journalists through many avenues, being easy to reach is part of the job description. Getting banned from twitter is a totally unimportant internet triviality.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    If you think Twitter isn't the most important Journalistic tool nowadays you're living in a cave. It is. There's literally no way to get more accurate news faster, by following sources you trust.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > If you think Twitter isn't the most important Journalistic tool nowadays you're living in a cave. It is. Twitter is the most important journalistic tool? Not e-mail? Not end-to-end encrypted chat services? The entertainment website made up of mostly celebrity gossip, memes and culture war propaganda? I think you're the one living in a cave my friend, a cave built, owned and operated by twitter. Just because it's popular with many journalists doesn't mean its important. There's no doubt there are some amazing journalists who use twitter at some points during their day, but the overwhelming sum of what goes on twitter can hardly be considered "journalism". > There's literally no way to get more accurate news faster, by following sources you trust. That's your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who would say using twitter as your primary news source is a terrible idea. News on the internet is a billion dollar business, twitter is just one of many innumerable sources of real-time news on the internet.
      - WClayFerguson 6y ago
        Point #1) Sure you can say email is as important as twitter. Good catch. Although taking my words too literally. But none of the other technology artifacts rank even close. And BTW if Google started censoring emails they'd be in BIG trouble just like Twitter is. Thanks for helping prove my point. Point #2) Twitter itself is not a news "source". News Networks however ARE. News is reliable on Twitter because you follow only who you trust, and you make the assumption that you're feed isn't being monkeyed with by Twitter. You're out of touch if you don't realize you can get more accurate news faster on Twitter than thru News Networks. Trust me on that. Plus what you get from the networks is all propaganda anyway, and generally not worth my time.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > But none of the other technology artifacts rank even close Google end-to-end encryption journalism. e2e encrypted services keep journalists and their sources alive, it far outranks the petty trivialities of twitter. > News is reliable on Twitter because you follow only who you trust Every social media website has a "follow" feature, nothing is special about twitter that makes the publishers more trustworthy than any other social network. > You're out of touch if you don't realize you can get more accurate news faster on Twitter than thru News Networks. Trust me on that. I don't need to trust you, we can agree to disagree on your opinion that twitter is a good place to get news.
WClayFerguson 6y ago
That 80% number is meaningless. Back when only 20% of people had internet or email or cell phone, would you have said it's ok for the internet, email, or phone company to be able to cut service if someone uttered the words "all lives matter" and offended the employees of the monopoly. It's silly. You lack perspective. Every legislator, politician, celebrity, and public figure is now using Twitter is their primary way to reach audience for written communications...except the banned ones.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  The attention of other people on twitter is not a utility, and I think comparisons to utilities like the phone network cloud the debate.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Well it does take a certain level of intelligence to even get what the debate is even about doesn't it?
    - mattnewton 6y ago
      I'm not trying to tone police here, but I do think the hn guidelines are helpful in keeping conversations useful. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - WClayFerguson 6y ago
        go back to your safe space.

ravi-delia 6y ago

Honestly I just don't see that. For one, if you're a public figure that Twitter bans you can just maintain a website and your followers will spread the word. If you aren't a public figure, there are plenty of alternatives that serve just fine. More important however is the issue that Twitter can only block access to Twitter. That it is difficult to switch ISPs only matters because with few alternatives an ISP blocking a site, or you canceling your contract, would lead to that site being inaccessible. The general policy 'companies shouldn't use their position to alter access to other companies' is more defensible than 'popular social media has to pretend to be a utility for a given value of popular and social media'.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
It sounds like you just have a fundamental disagreement that Twitter has become the primary backbone for public communications between powerful people and their audience (for which there is no viable replacement because of Network Effect), as well as for real-time messaging between individuals and groups. Until you acknowledge that fact, you won't 'see' a problem.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  Could you give a concrete example of a scenario where someone is left without any method of public communication without Twitter? Sure it's easier, and other sites might not give the same free random updrafts of popularity, but if people want to hear your message you just don't need Twitter.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    If phone companies were allowed to cut service to people based on the political leanings of phone calls, then would you be saying: "It's ok, people can just find another phone company or use emails for communication, when their phone is cut"? You don't think Twitter is analogous to phone service. I do. That's the disconnect here.