4 ms·

I felt like I never "got" twitter and never became a heavy user, so I've been feeling pretty smug about its downfall. HOWEVER - governments started posting inf

I felt like I never "got" twitter and never became a heavy user, so I've been feeling pretty smug about its downfall. HOWEVER - governments started posting information to twitter because that's where the eyeballs were. It's not really that different from sending out information via the big 3 tv networks - those are private companies as well, but it was the most effective way to get info to as many people as quickly as possible. Imagine one of the big 3 tv broadcasters dropping the ball on dispersing wildfire information, they'd be abject with their apologies to the govt and the public. I guess where this comparison falls apart is we never saw an egomaniacal shitlord buy a big 3 tv broadcaster and run it into the ground.

ghusto 3y ago
> It's not really that different from sending out information via the big 3 tv networks Doesn't the government have special powers there that give them rights for special types of message broadcasts? I don't know, but I always presumed they did (at least in the UK). That wouldn't be a bad compromise here too. The big five should be treated the same way as TV channels (if my mentioned understanding is actually correct).
- mewse-hn 3y ago
  Funny you mentioned the UK - I'm in Canada and our BBC and CBC channels have an even larger responsibility to inform the public than the American big three, but they receive govt funding. I don't think this is the sort of thing that needs legislative intervention, I think Twitter needs to get out of the way and let the govt communicate with its citizens when lives are at stake. Rate limiting their tweets during wildfire evacuations was a colossal fuck up. "Colossal fuck up" seems to be Twitter's current operating procedure, and will doom them as a platform.