6 ms·

Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me

by Veen 5y ago

Elected officials shouldn't have to rely on Twitter or other social media platforms to communicate with their constituencies. This woman seems like a loon to me, but she's a loon with a democratic mandate. If social media is going to be the default communication medium, then perhaps it needs regulation to clarify its relationship with elected officials.

kemayo 5y ago
Interestingly, she only got personally banned. Throughout she has maintained a "official business" account, which didn't get used for conspiracy-peddling, which hasn't been banned. > Ms. Greene’s official Congressional account, @RepMTG, remains active because tweets from that account did not violate the service’s rules.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
This is close to my reasoning. If Twitter or others are so important then they should be regulated as public utilities. I don't think they are. It's funny when politicians with entire staff committed to disseminating information complain about censorship.
- krapp 5y ago
  If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a bad idea. This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    I mostly agree. Regulating something as a utility doesn't mean the government takes over the company. There are just much more rules for what they can do. For example my electric company has an approval process for price increases.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Why does the government need to built its own social media platform? We regulate other privately-owned utilities all the time. Cell phone companies, power utilities, water services, waste management, etc. This is no different - social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are fundamental services in our modern society and it is unacceptable for users to be unfairly discriminated against or banned based on their viewpoints. > Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a bad idea. We already do this all the time in many different ways - it’s called regulation and it is not the same as “taking over” a business, so spare me the hyperbole. The free speech of individuals is more important that the association rights of Twitter or the cabal of other tech oligopolies that are all immune to competition due to their market capitalization and network effects. > This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource. Actually it does bear some similarities. The scarcity is not around a ‘spectrum’ but it does exist because these products rely on network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). These network effects mean that access to users and attention is limited and there is a barrier to entry that prevents market competition from functioning properly. So there absolutely is reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information is a scarce resource.
    - D13Fd 5y ago
      Everyone seems to like beating the "regulation" drum but it's not at all clear what that would mean. Companies can no longer ban politicians? Companies can no longer filter "misinformation" (whatever that is)? Plus, are we trying to force companies to let all speech through (antisemitism OK? True racism OK?), or just to force them to carry what they deem "misinformation"? It's hard to understand exactly what the goal of this "regulation" are and it's even harder to imagine a regulatory scheme that would accomplish those goals without major unwanted side effects.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Twitter was there before she decided to join. She could have just stuck to press releases.
ianleeclark 5y ago
> If social media is going to be the default communication medium I don't think this is really true. Most people in the US don't use Twitter. Not to mention that many users are following entertainment based users or aren't fully consuming posts by those they follow. Twitter is just an additional stream/supplement to town halls, email lists, websites, news coverage, etc.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  Twitter use is near-ubiquitous among journalists, politicians, and those who wield or seek to gain influence. Corporations fire people, companies terminate business deals, and universities expel students based on what gets said on Twitter. News agencies find leads and shape stories using Twitter. Most of what gets said on CNN, NBC, or Fox News is filtered through the lens of writers who use Twitter and care about how Twitter will react. Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets. Most Americans may not use Twitter, but I would say most are still affected by it, whether they know it or not.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gpu_explorer 5y ago
    > Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets. > Political fortunes can swing on bad press releases. > Political fortunes can swing on bad interviews. > Political fortunes can swing on bad comments at private dinners that become public. As they should.
anigbrowl 5y ago
Ironically enough the last tweet I saw from her was promoting the idea that people who move from blue states to red should have to wait for 2 years before they're allowed to vote. You can't see her tweets any more since she's been kicked off* but this story adequately summarizes them - I picked a conservative news outlet to avoid the possibility of unfavorable media bias. https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national-divorce-between-red-and-blue-states/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national... * It's really stupid that Twitter makes old tweets invisible. First they're easily accessible by other means to technically savvy people via archive.org or whatever, so this just throws barriers in the way of the least technically educated. Second, it fosters paranoia and mistrust because conversations about the tweets begin to resemble rumors rather than fact.
yesdocs 5y ago
Television has been the default communication mechanism for many years, and as such is already regulated. I believe the problem with TV is that you cannot lie in political advertising, which is probably why MTG was not using that platform. This is an old and tired argument, dismissed long ago to avoid propaganda and public risks. MTG has not been banned from TV, she has all the Democratic access she needs.
version_five 5y ago
I'd also say constituents shouldn't have to rely on for-profit (and in this case objectively harmful to society) advertising platforms in order to hear from elected officials or government. Where I am, Twitter seems to have become the default channel for many kinds of communication, and those of us who don't use it are excluded.
- clowd 5y ago
  Every member of Congress is provided with their own website, a subdomain of either house.gov or senate.gov, for the entirety of their term. If your representative neglects that website and chooses to communicate through a private outlet instead, that's something to complain to your representative about.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    It's not a case of representatives neglecting that website. It's a case of the people not looking at that website, because they're too busy looking at Twitter instead.
    - riffic 5y ago
      the audience will move if necessary. Open protocols should be the default. We have W3C recommendations that make the federated social web possible.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > Open protocols should be the default. We have W3C recommendations that make the federated social web possible. I agree. > the audience will move if necessary. If we let that be the plan, then our filter bubble problem will get even worse. Everyone left of a certain point will only be on Twitter, and everyone else will only be on the fediverse. It's a lot less likely that people will follow anyone they disagree with if they'd need another account they couldn't otherwise use.
- riffic 5y ago
bcrl 5y ago
They don't have to rely on Twitter. Politicians have office budgets which include money for sending out mailings to their constituents. Most politicians also have their own email lists to which they send out updates and run polls. There are plenty of venues outside of Twitter to contact constituents. Twitter itself is under no more of an obligation to publish material from a politician than a newspaper is. Both are corporations that operate under obligations to their shareholders. If a politician really wants to publish something on Twitter, they can pay for promoted ads just like they can with a newspaper. Expecting social media platforms to promote their message for free is hopelessly naive and does not match how democracy has worked for centuries. Sure, newspapers have published political messages for free via editorials and stories, but they are not obligated to do so. Getting the message out has always required time from volunteers and/or money towards supporting the cause.
- Jansen312 5y ago
  Newspaper can be sued. Twitter can't (section 230) because they are a platform that can't choose what to publish. But they now giving Congress the finger by acting like newspaper and still can't be sued. Essentially, new media are given protection while old media constrainted. I favor 230 removed or explicitly nullify if media show they can censor.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    I wholeheartedly concur that section 230 needs to go or be significantly revised. After seeing my elderly father get phishing ads served up by Google during COVID from completely reasonable searches, I'd like to see it be possible to start going after damages from this kind of activity.
jacquesm 5y ago
The only reason they use Twitter is because that is a direct way to the public, rather than through those pesky mainstream media who might decide not to air certain statements or write about them in their opinion columns right along the reporting. It's simply an attempt at an end-run around the free press, that's why it is so popular with the extremists and that's why the extremists do their damnest to create their own 'safe space' for their horrifying little screeds.
rsynnott 5y ago
So, traditionally, politicians communicated via press release, either personally or via a press office. Of course, this had the disadvantage that newspapers etc might just decline to publish obvious nonsense. However, there’s presumably nothing stopping her from issuing this nonsense via press release, or on a blog, or similar.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by Veen 5y ago

kemayo 5y ago

Interestingly, she only got personally banned. Throughout she has maintained a "official business" account, which didn't get used for conspiracy-peddling, which hasn't been banned. > Ms. Greene’s official Congressional account, @RepMTG, remains active because tweets from that account did not violate the service’s rules.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

This is close to my reasoning. If Twitter or others are so important then they should be regulated as public utilities. I don't think they are. It's funny when politicians with entire staff committed to disseminating information complain about censorship.

krapp 5y ago
If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a bad idea. This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  I mostly agree. Regulating something as a utility doesn't mean the government takes over the company. There are just much more rules for what they can do. For example my electric company has an approval process for price increases.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > If social media is that important - and that isn't a decision anyone has actually voted on, it's just something people say now - then the government can build its own social media platform and regulate it as a utility. Why does the government need to built its own social media platform? We regulate other privately-owned utilities all the time. Cell phone companies, power utilities, water services, waste management, etc. This is no different - social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are fundamental services in our modern society and it is unacceptable for users to be unfairly discriminated against or banned based on their viewpoints. > Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a bad idea. We already do this all the time in many different ways - it’s called regulation and it is not the same as “taking over” a business, so spare me the hyperbole. The free speech of individuals is more important that the association rights of Twitter or the cabal of other tech oligopolies that are all immune to competition due to their market capitalization and network effects. > This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource. Actually it does bear some similarities. The scarcity is not around a ‘spectrum’ but it does exist because these products rely on network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). These network effects mean that access to users and attention is limited and there is a barrier to entry that prevents market competition from functioning properly. So there absolutely is reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information is a scarce resource.
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    Everyone seems to like beating the "regulation" drum but it's not at all clear what that would mean. Companies can no longer ban politicians? Companies can no longer filter "misinformation" (whatever that is)? Plus, are we trying to force companies to let all speech through (antisemitism OK? True racism OK?), or just to force them to carry what they deem "misinformation"? It's hard to understand exactly what the goal of this "regulation" are and it's even harder to imagine a regulatory scheme that would accomplish those goals without major unwanted side effects.
jacquesm 5y ago
Twitter was there before she decided to join. She could have just stuck to press releases.

ianleeclark 5y ago

> If social media is going to be the default communication medium I don't think this is really true. Most people in the US don't use Twitter. Not to mention that many users are following entertainment based users or aren't fully consuming posts by those they follow. Twitter is just an additional stream/supplement to town halls, email lists, websites, news coverage, etc.

neartheplain 5y ago
Twitter use is near-ubiquitous among journalists, politicians, and those who wield or seek to gain influence. Corporations fire people, companies terminate business deals, and universities expel students based on what gets said on Twitter. News agencies find leads and shape stories using Twitter. Most of what gets said on CNN, NBC, or Fox News is filtered through the lens of writers who use Twitter and care about how Twitter will react. Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets. Most Americans may not use Twitter, but I would say most are still affected by it, whether they know it or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gpu_explorer 5y ago
  > Political fortunes can swing on bad tweets. > Political fortunes can swing on bad press releases. > Political fortunes can swing on bad interviews. > Political fortunes can swing on bad comments at private dinners that become public. As they should.

anigbrowl 5y ago

Ironically enough the last tweet I saw from her was promoting the idea that people who move from blue states to red should have to wait for 2 years before they're allowed to vote. You can't see her tweets any more since she's been kicked off* but this story adequately summarizes them - I picked a conservative news outlet to avoid the possibility of unfavorable media bias. https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national-divorce-between-red-and-blue-states/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national... * It's really stupid that Twitter makes old tweets invisible. First they're easily accessible by other means to technically savvy people via archive.org or whatever, so this just throws barriers in the way of the least technically educated. Second, it fosters paranoia and mistrust because conversations about the tweets begin to resemble rumors rather than fact.

yesdocs 5y ago

Television has been the default communication mechanism for many years, and as such is already regulated. I believe the problem with TV is that you cannot lie in political advertising, which is probably why MTG was not using that platform. This is an old and tired argument, dismissed long ago to avoid propaganda and public risks. MTG has not been banned from TV, she has all the Democratic access she needs.

version_five 5y ago

I'd also say constituents shouldn't have to rely on for-profit (and in this case objectively harmful to society) advertising platforms in order to hear from elected officials or government. Where I am, Twitter seems to have become the default channel for many kinds of communication, and those of us who don't use it are excluded.

clowd 5y ago
Every member of Congress is provided with their own website, a subdomain of either house.gov or senate.gov, for the entirety of their term. If your representative neglects that website and chooses to communicate through a private outlet instead, that's something to complain to your representative about.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  It's not a case of representatives neglecting that website. It's a case of the people not looking at that website, because they're too busy looking at Twitter instead.
  - riffic 5y ago
    the audience will move if necessary. Open protocols should be the default. We have W3C recommendations that make the federated social web possible.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > Open protocols should be the default. We have W3C recommendations that make the federated social web possible. I agree. > the audience will move if necessary. If we let that be the plan, then our filter bubble problem will get even worse. Everyone left of a certain point will only be on Twitter, and everyone else will only be on the fediverse. It's a lot less likely that people will follow anyone they disagree with if they'd need another account they couldn't otherwise use.
riffic 5y ago

bcrl 5y ago

They don't have to rely on Twitter. Politicians have office budgets which include money for sending out mailings to their constituents. Most politicians also have their own email lists to which they send out updates and run polls. There are plenty of venues outside of Twitter to contact constituents. Twitter itself is under no more of an obligation to publish material from a politician than a newspaper is. Both are corporations that operate under obligations to their shareholders. If a politician really wants to publish something on Twitter, they can pay for promoted ads just like they can with a newspaper. Expecting social media platforms to promote their message for free is hopelessly naive and does not match how democracy has worked for centuries. Sure, newspapers have published political messages for free via editorials and stories, but they are not obligated to do so. Getting the message out has always required time from volunteers and/or money towards supporting the cause.

Jansen312 5y ago
Newspaper can be sued. Twitter can't (section 230) because they are a platform that can't choose what to publish. But they now giving Congress the finger by acting like newspaper and still can't be sued. Essentially, new media are given protection while old media constrainted. I favor 230 removed or explicitly nullify if media show they can censor.
- bcrl 5y ago
  I wholeheartedly concur that section 230 needs to go or be significantly revised. After seeing my elderly father get phishing ads served up by Google during COVID from completely reasonable searches, I'd like to see it be possible to start going after damages from this kind of activity.

jacquesm 5y ago

The only reason they use Twitter is because that is a direct way to the public, rather than through those pesky mainstream media who might decide not to air certain statements or write about them in their opinion columns right along the reporting. It's simply an attempt at an end-run around the free press, that's why it is so popular with the extremists and that's why the extremists do their damnest to create their own 'safe space' for their horrifying little screeds.

rsynnott 5y ago

So, traditionally, politicians communicated via press release, either personally or via a press office. Of course, this had the disadvantage that newspapers etc might just decline to publish obvious nonsense. However, there’s presumably nothing stopping her from issuing this nonsense via press release, or on a blog, or similar.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]