4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNewspaper 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 agoI 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.