3 ms·
There's "criticism" and there's "abuse", and copy/pasting the same message to hundreds on Twitter posts is "abuse". This kind of attitude is why politicians se
by arp242 3y ago
There's "criticism" and there's "abuse", and copy/pasting the same message to hundreds on Twitter posts is "abuse".
This kind of attitude is why politicians seem to slowly skew more towards over-confident aggressive brash loudmouths who are very good at shouting and dealing with an endless stream of abuse, rather than the actual business of running things.
- hn_acker 3y agoThe social media company can decide whether and how to handle it. The government official can ask but not coerce the social media company to ban abusive comments. And as I wrote [1] in reply to arp242's sibling comment: > The politician should mirror the post on a website the politician controls with no comments allowed or simply post on such a website in the first place. The politician can then post a link to the relevant page of the politician's website to the politician's social media accounts and proceed to ignore the comments on the social media site. If the politician is a government official, this is still perfectly compatible with the First Amendment, because the official has the First Amendment freedom of association and therefore can refuse to host comments on the politician's announcements on the politician's own websites. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38092066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38092066