3 ms·

It is insane to me that people will go to these lengths to avoid spending $8. >B.C. government refuses to spend $8 to keep their emergency services announcemen

It is insane to me that people will go to these lengths to avoid spending $8. >B.C. government refuses to spend $8 to keep their emergency services announcement host account active amid wildfire evacuation announcements.

izzydata 3y ago
On principle I don't think they should. Twitter intentionally degraded an existing service. I don't think they should even spend a single dollar as they have proven themselves unreliable with changing things on a whim. It's not really about the money. It's about having control over the system that is used for critical services.
- thepasswordis 3y ago
  What if they didn't pay their hosting bill?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
a_cool_username 3y ago
The article discusses that this is actually in the tens of thousands of dollars: >Twitter’s API service limits tweets for non-paying users to 1,500 a month — not enough for many emergency accounts. And while a small fee for the platform's 'Blue Check' service will increase that ceiling for individual users, the cost of an enterprise account has reportedly climbed into the tens of thousands of dollars.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
As a BC resident: I am totally fine with that. Twitter never should have become the government announcement site it did. I don't want critical announcements to be made through a private foreign company with extreme political leanings and financial ties to the Saudi government that requires an account to view. And I certainly don't want my tax money being spent in that way. I shouldn't have to have a twitter account, or interact with any site with "terms and conditions" in order to view critical safety information. Put it on a website that is available to all, and if someone wants to create a bot that posts it to private platforms that's a better way to solve the problem.

3 ms·

It is insane to me that people will go to these lengths to avoid spending $8. >B.C. government refuses to spend $8 to keep their emergency services announcemen

by thepasswordis 3y ago

izzydata 3y ago
On principle I don't think they should. Twitter intentionally degraded an existing service. I don't think they should even spend a single dollar as they have proven themselves unreliable with changing things on a whim. It's not really about the money. It's about having control over the system that is used for critical services.
- thepasswordis 3y ago
  What if they didn't pay their hosting bill?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
a_cool_username 3y ago
The article discusses that this is actually in the tens of thousands of dollars: >Twitter’s API service limits tweets for non-paying users to 1,500 a month — not enough for many emergency accounts. And while a small fee for the platform's 'Blue Check' service will increase that ceiling for individual users, the cost of an enterprise account has reportedly climbed into the tens of thousands of dollars.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
As a BC resident: I am totally fine with that. Twitter never should have become the government announcement site it did. I don't want critical announcements to be made through a private foreign company with extreme political leanings and financial ties to the Saudi government that requires an account to view. And I certainly don't want my tax money being spent in that way. I shouldn't have to have a twitter account, or interact with any site with "terms and conditions" in order to view critical safety information. Put it on a website that is available to all, and if someone wants to create a bot that posts it to private platforms that's a better way to solve the problem.