3 ms·
It is not that different from using television or radio or private phone lines to conduct business in the past. I would not ask public officials to communicate
by ajkjk 3y ago
It is not that different from using television or radio or private phone lines to conduct business in the past. I would not ask public officials to communicate in silly suboptimal ways out of an imagined principle that it's important that their communication only be on public channels.
- paxys 3y agoIt's very different than using (broadcast) TV or radio or phone lines. All of those are still strictly regulated, and you can't be arbitrarily barred access. Your only obligation as a citizen is to own a receiver. This does not apply to random websites on the internet.
- lolinder 3y agoThe government is and always has been tightly involved in television, radio, and phone services. The first two were traditionally broadcast through the airwaves for anyone to pick up and listen to, and the latter is a tightly regulated public utility that unfortunately functions as a government-ordained monopoly. All three are widely regarded as part of the commons. Twitter never has been treated that way, and is rapidly becoming more and more private and less and less a communal resource that is equally accessible to all.
- macinjosh 3y agoCable and satellite radio do not have much government involvement. Terrestrial broadcasts in the US are really the only place your argument has any standing and almost no one uses those these days in comparison.
- lolinder 3y agoYou're completely ignoring the context of my comment: > It is not that different from using television or radio or private phone lines to conduct business in the past Terrestrial broadcasts in the US in the past are the subject of this comparison. Whether my description of said historical broadcasts is applicable to modern cable and satellite radio is immaterial, because we're not talking about modern cable and radio usage. Yes those are different, but they're also not used as official channels for government communication any more the way that broadcast TV and radio used to be. They've been transferred
- likeclockwork 3y agoThey don't really "use" television and radio though, do they? They hold a press conference and television and radio stations show up and broadcast them. The stations aren't under any obligation to show up and if they declined to do so the officials would get no airtime without using the emergency broadcast option.
- pixl97 3y agoAt least in the more distant past in the time of the fairness act the broadcast stations had somewhat of an obligation if they were showing news/politics they had to have a somewhat 'balanced' showing.
- macinjosh 3y agoBelieve me they use those mediums plenty. They even pay for ads during election season.
- plagiarist 3y agoTelevision and radio were literally unencrypted public channels, I don't think that person would object to a public broadcast of that nature.
- redeux 3y agoWhich of these is silly and suboptimal? 1. Communication on a novelty social media platform that limits the amount of I formation you can relay at any one point, by design and that [probably] less than 25% of Americans use. 2. Communication over a set of public frequencies that nearly every American can access free of charge from their home. 3. Communication over a regulated public utility that every American with a home can access?
- xorcist 3y agoIn what country do you need to register and give up personal identifying information in order to read a newspaper or listen to the radio? If the idea to centrally register every reader before they were allowed to read news articles had been raised in the 50s or 60s, it would have rightly been regarded as undemocratic. In our age it passes without discussion, and any suggestion it may be problematic is regarded as useless nostalgia.