7 ms·
You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)
by roflyear 3y ago
You can't think of a scenario where the government should be able to express a thought about something? ;)
- Auracle 3y agoThey have plenty of ways to do so without using intermediaries at social media companies.
- roflyear 3y agoThat's implying compelling speech which is not the discussion.
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoThe rights apply to people not the govt lol Edit: Amazing, a perfect factual comment is downvoted.
- roflyear 3y agoI'm just saying there are times where you may want the government to be able to express opinions....
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoYeah, and no one is preventing that. There is a diff between opinion and force/blackmail disguised as opinion. "You have a fine shop here, would be a shame if it burned down". Syntactically, it is an opinion. But it is not just an opinion if comes from a mobster.
- caseysoftware 3y agoA government doesn't "express opinions" they "enact policy."
- evandale 3y agoNo? What!? Name a scenario in which the government would put forth an opinion on something.. governments, like corporations, can't have opinions.
- roflyear 3y agoSure. "We think that info may put someone on our security team at risk, can you please take it down?"
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoThat is not an opinion. It is a request at the best or a command when read pragmatically. Edit: Think about this. If it is just an opinion, they can say that in press releases and not communicate that in secret to social media companies.
- roflyear 3y agoIt's obviously not something they can say in press releases, but it also may not be factual (or provable). There are "we think" situations which are important.
- JackFr 3y agoThe daily White House press briefing is an excellent venue.
- roflyear 3y agoI don't think that gives them all the avenues to express things that may be important.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI am satisfied for the space of the government’s unenforceable opinions to be circumscribed.
- roflyear 3y agoWhich restrictions are you cool with?
- uLogMicheal 3y agoThe government has plenty of ways to express thoughts. Almost every agency has a podium with a room full of reporters waiting whenever they want to make a statement.
- Brusco_RF 3y agoThey don't have enough channels to do that? They have to do it via veiled threat to a speech platform to delete users posts? How can anyone defend this behavior? Just because it's your guy doing it? If Trump was telling Twitter to delete posts that hurt his re-election chances would you feel this same way?
- artificialLimbs 3y agoUnbelievable that you're being downvoted at all. The authoritarian minded have definitely increased substantially as this site has become more popular and drawn increasingly larger crowds. When it was dominated by those capable of logic and reasoning and having some knowledge of the world, authoritarianism would get smacked down hard and rightfully so.
- roflyear 3y agoI am sure you are just as illogical as other people - and it would be good for you to realize that! Never did I say that I support governments. I was only asking what I thought (and was wrong about) was a positive provoking question.
- roflyear 3y agoNot the context I was replying to.
- mc32 3y agoSure, in addition to all of their organs of dissemination, of which they have plenty of options, they can also have their own Twitter and Facebook accounts. What they can’t do is ring up Twitter and Facebook and say, hey, that’s misinformation, do something about it. Or have government embeds giving guidance. That’s hilariously very ayatollesque behavior!
- JackFr 3y agoFor instance, if you're the FAA, you should express opinions about airline operations, air safety, etc. That is your role. If you are the FDA, you should express opinions about food and drug safety. And in both those cases note that you are a regulator, and within your domain, it is your role to regulate the players. If you are the White House, you are not a regulator of anything. It is fine to express your opinion. In fact the White House has a daily press briefing for specifically that purpose. It is fine to call out people with whom you disagree. Perfectly OK to call them dangerous charlatans and liars. It is not OK to censor their speech. It is not OK use the implicit coercive force of the executive branch to encourage third parties to censor them. It's not hard to understand.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> If you are the White House, you are not a regulator of anything If you are the White House, you are the ur-regulator of anything any part of the executive branch is a regulator of, as well as the things that the Executive Office of the President is the actual direct regulator of (which are mostly internal to government operations.)
- roflyear 3y agoMan, people are being really rude here just for me asking a question.