5 ms·

The semantic arguments are pointless. The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able t

by imgabe 6y ago

The semantic arguments are pointless. The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? If you do, you are effectively placing the leadership of the country at Twitter's discretion. Do you want to have a democracy where all voices can be heard, or do you want a small cadre of unelected corporate bureaucrats to decide what is allowed and not allowed? We have an established democratic process to censure (not censor) and if necessary, remove from office elected officials. That is the appropriate venue and the appropriate authority to deal with this, not Twitter.

arrrg 6y ago
Twitter is not the be all end all of communicating with the world. That’s absurd and more indicative of a warped Silicon Valley centric worldview that overemphasizes the importance of Twitter and others. Don’t get me wrong, Twitter is important, but not so much because it’s the only way for governments to communicate effectively with citizens. That’s absurd.
- imgabe 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be the only way and nobody said it was. It is a way, and an important one that is very effective at reaching a lot of people. Government has long had the power to commandeer broadcast media when it needs to get a message to the people ("We interrupt this broadcast...") Do we want to do away with that? For all its flaws, the government is still something every citizen of the US has a say in, however small. I'm not willing to trade that for rule by Twitter executives, however well-intentioned they might be at the present moment.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Government has long had the power to commandeer broadcast media when it needs to get a message to the people (“We interrupt this broadcast…”) No, it hasn’t (outside of, say, the Emergency Alert System.) Government addresses (“We interrupt this broadcast…”) are a subject of requests for air time, which broadcast networks usually (but not always) grant. A decent enough basic explanation with some historical examples is here: https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/major-networks-carry-presidential-addresses.htm https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/major-networks-carry...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - johndubchak 6y ago
    Twitter is not owned by the Government.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? Generally, yes, I want private entities to decide whether or not to relay government messages. (The government should have its own facilities for basic necessary operational communication via the post, common carrier phone systems, etc., of course.) The alternative is to surrender freedom of speech in favor of government direction of media. There’s a very narrow space of cases where, with appropriate procedural safeguards, which start with legislation determining the need and setting the conditions of use, the government ought to be able to direct messages over private infrastructure that isn’t common-carrier; that role is pretty much covered by the Emergency Alert System [0] in the US. [0] https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system/public/emergency-alert-system https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integr...
- imgabe 6y ago
  > The alternative is to surrender freedom of speech in favor of government direction of media. Delivering government messages does not preclude you from also delivering contradictory messages from others. Freedom of speech would involve delivering all messages, not just the ones you like. Requirement to deliver messages != direction of the media.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Freedom of speech would involve delivering all messages, not just the ones you like. No, my freedom of speech and the press means I don’t relay speech or use my press to reproduce messages I don’t think deserve to be relayed. That’s pretty well established to be the meaning of that freedom. > Requirement to deliver messages != direction of the media. Yes, the state mandating that I use my resources (such as a printing press, or its digital analog) to reproduce and disseminate messages I disagree with relaying is direction of the media and (outside the usual strict scrutiny terms for restrictions on essential liberty) a violation of my First Amendment rights.
    - 6y ago
TeaDrunk 6y ago
Has it been legally established that twitter should be treated like a government platform when governments use it? Can twitter be used and enforced like C-SPAN?
- edoceo 6y ago
  POTUS account different than Trump account
ta2987 6y ago
I just demanded my neighbor hang my banner on the front of his house, he seems to disagree with your reasoning. Can I give him your phone number so you can explain it to him?
Barrin92 6y ago
>The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? no and luckily for you it cannot, because if the President of the US wants to speak on public matters he can do so through the White House press room. However Donald J Trump, despite the fact that he thinks he is somehow synonymous with "The United States government", which he is not, can be thrown off any private platform that deems that necessary. Some people might have forgotten it over the last four years, but Donald Trump and his personal twitter account, and the office of the presidency, are not the same thing.
markdown 6y ago
> do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? The US govt doesn't need Twitter to communicate with its citizens.
johndubchak 6y ago
Your argument is completely flawed. Twitter has no Civic obligation here. As a Corporation they have a fiduciary responsibility, not to the President or his messaging, but to its broader users. The fact that there was hate speech by a user, in this case the President, means that Twitter acted in support of its broader platform. It has no obligation to the President or to support his preferred communication platform for hate speech.
- imgabe 6y ago
  You don't think citizens have a right to hear exactly what their elected officials say in their own words? Maybe you are happy to outsource your judgement to Twitter. I'm not.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > You don’t think citizens have a right to hear exactly what their elected officials say in their own words? I don’t think the state has the Constitutional power to compel private parties to relay what officials say outside of exceptional cases, because of freedom of speech and the press. The right to hear isn’t the right to commandeer others resources to have it relayed to your hearing.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      Twitter exists in the US, backed by US laws and the framework of the US society. Their ability to do business rests on contracts upheld by US courts. As such, they have certain responsibilities to the people of the United States. One of those should be to refrain from using their power as a transmitter of information to manipulate the relationship between the people and their government. Maybe here, they have some noble purpose, do we trust that in the future they always will? Maybe in the future they would delete the accounts of Senators who call for antitrust investigations into Twitter. Who knows? Once they have the power, do you trust them to use it only for things you agree with? A right to hear without any mechanism to enforce it is pointless. We place reasonable restrictions on companies that serve the general public to ensure they treat all members of the public fairly. You can't decide not to serve certain customers because you don't like their skin color or religion, for example. Another reasonable requirement for a communications company would be that they accurately relay the communications that their users send, without interfering with or manipulating them to serve the company's own purposes.

by imgabe 6y ago

arrrg 6y ago

Twitter is not the be all end all of communicating with the world. That’s absurd and more indicative of a warped Silicon Valley centric worldview that overemphasizes the importance of Twitter and others. Don’t get me wrong, Twitter is important, but not so much because it’s the only way for governments to communicate effectively with citizens. That’s absurd.

imgabe 6y ago
It doesn't have to be the only way and nobody said it was. It is a way, and an important one that is very effective at reaching a lot of people. Government has long had the power to commandeer broadcast media when it needs to get a message to the people ("We interrupt this broadcast...") Do we want to do away with that? For all its flaws, the government is still something every citizen of the US has a say in, however small. I'm not willing to trade that for rule by Twitter executives, however well-intentioned they might be at the present moment.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Government has long had the power to commandeer broadcast media when it needs to get a message to the people (“We interrupt this broadcast…”) No, it hasn’t (outside of, say, the Emergency Alert System.) Government addresses (“We interrupt this broadcast…”) are a subject of requests for air time, which broadcast networks usually (but not always) grant. A decent enough basic explanation with some historical examples is here: https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/major-networks-carry-presidential-addresses.htm https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/major-networks-carry...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- johndubchak 6y ago
  Twitter is not owned by the Government.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? Generally, yes, I want private entities to decide whether or not to relay government messages. (The government should have its own facilities for basic necessary operational communication via the post, common carrier phone systems, etc., of course.) The alternative is to surrender freedom of speech in favor of government direction of media. There’s a very narrow space of cases where, with appropriate procedural safeguards, which start with legislation determining the need and setting the conditions of use, the government ought to be able to direct messages over private infrastructure that isn’t common-carrier; that role is pretty much covered by the Emergency Alert System [0] in the US. [0] https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system/public/emergency-alert-system https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/integr...

imgabe 6y ago
> The alternative is to surrender freedom of speech in favor of government direction of media. Delivering government messages does not preclude you from also delivering contradictory messages from others. Freedom of speech would involve delivering all messages, not just the ones you like. Requirement to deliver messages != direction of the media.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Freedom of speech would involve delivering all messages, not just the ones you like. No, my freedom of speech and the press means I don’t relay speech or use my press to reproduce messages I don’t think deserve to be relayed. That’s pretty well established to be the meaning of that freedom. > Requirement to deliver messages != direction of the media. Yes, the state mandating that I use my resources (such as a printing press, or its digital analog) to reproduce and disseminate messages I disagree with relaying is direction of the media and (outside the usual strict scrutiny terms for restrictions on essential liberty) a violation of my First Amendment rights.
  - 6y ago

TeaDrunk 6y ago

Has it been legally established that twitter should be treated like a government platform when governments use it? Can twitter be used and enforced like C-SPAN?

edoceo 6y ago
POTUS account different than Trump account

ta2987 6y ago

I just demanded my neighbor hang my banner on the front of his house, he seems to disagree with your reasoning. Can I give him your phone number so you can explain it to him?

Barrin92 6y ago

>The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? no and luckily for you it cannot, because if the President of the US wants to speak on public matters he can do so through the White House press room. However Donald J Trump, despite the fact that he thinks he is somehow synonymous with "The United States government", which he is not, can be thrown off any private platform that deems that necessary. Some people might have forgotten it over the last four years, but Donald Trump and his personal twitter account, and the office of the presidency, are not the same thing.

markdown 6y ago

> do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? The US govt doesn't need Twitter to communicate with its citizens.

johndubchak 6y ago

Your argument is completely flawed. Twitter has no Civic obligation here. As a Corporation they have a fiduciary responsibility, not to the President or his messaging, but to its broader users. The fact that there was hate speech by a user, in this case the President, means that Twitter acted in support of its broader platform. It has no obligation to the President or to support his preferred communication platform for hate speech.

imgabe 6y ago
You don't think citizens have a right to hear exactly what their elected officials say in their own words? Maybe you are happy to outsource your judgement to Twitter. I'm not.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You don’t think citizens have a right to hear exactly what their elected officials say in their own words? I don’t think the state has the Constitutional power to compel private parties to relay what officials say outside of exceptional cases, because of freedom of speech and the press. The right to hear isn’t the right to commandeer others resources to have it relayed to your hearing.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Twitter exists in the US, backed by US laws and the framework of the US society. Their ability to do business rests on contracts upheld by US courts. As such, they have certain responsibilities to the people of the United States. One of those should be to refrain from using their power as a transmitter of information to manipulate the relationship between the people and their government. Maybe here, they have some noble purpose, do we trust that in the future they always will? Maybe in the future they would delete the accounts of Senators who call for antitrust investigations into Twitter. Who knows? Once they have the power, do you trust them to use it only for things you agree with? A right to hear without any mechanism to enforce it is pointless. We place reasonable restrictions on companies that serve the general public to ensure they treat all members of the public fairly. You can't decide not to serve certain customers because you don't like their skin color or religion, for example. Another reasonable requirement for a communications company would be that they accurately relay the communications that their users send, without interfering with or manipulating them to serve the company's own purposes.