4 ms·
The POTUS relying on a commercial entity to communicate with the public seems like a more fundamental horrible practice.
by city41 5y ago
The POTUS relying on a commercial entity to communicate with the public seems like a more fundamental horrible practice.
- phy6 5y agoEspecially when accounts could be hacked to say anything, like the incidents a couple years ago. Imagine the POTUS account pissing off an unstable dictator in some country, or posting of some sensitive information.
- drewg123 5y agoWhen has it been any different? Before twitter, it was TV and radio. Before RV and radio, it was newspapers. All of these are commercial entities (with a few non-profit exceptions).
- riffic 5y agotelevision and radio were at least publicly available and based on published/known standards. you didn't need to ask anyone permission to receive signals.
- city41 5y agoOn top of that the FCC governs the airwaves and (at least in theory) works to ensure they meet public need. There are also other rules such as the Equal Time Rule. Twitter is subject to nothing like these things.
- dredmorbius 5y agoIt is older than the Republic. Heads of state have spoken through commercial publications since printing existed. Roughly 1550. Online Internet services merely happen to be the present iteration of this. (I'm not saying that the practice isn't without its problems. I'm saying it's nothing new.)