3 ms·
Well let’s say someone just spams a prominent account with bot accounts, such that any and all discussion beneath their posts is ruined. Or fills the mentions w
by graeme 3y ago
Well let’s say someone just spams a prominent account with bot accounts, such that any and all discussion beneath their posts is ruined. Or fills the mentions with slander, hateful comments etc.
twitter is the Wild West right now, full of bots and comments that violate rules but take a while to get enforced.
Blocks solve that. But also deprive people of being able to hear announcements.
Splitting the ability to listen to a broadcast and the ability to broadcast on a broadcast seems sensible. You could, after all, be removed from a courtroom or government press conference for being disruptive.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoThey can't just block speech using bots as the excuse. It's up to the government officials to provide a channel that allows free speech as the law defines. I imagine this will more likely raise issue with the use of private social platforms for public statements rather than whether they can block comments.
- GauntletWizard 3y agoIt's perfectly legal for the government or government officials to post on government sites without comment sections. I'm happy of they disable replies altogether. I'm fine if they only show moderated replies. The problem is that Twitter won't even let you link to a tweet by a user you've been blocked by. That's definitely not okay.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago> I'm fine if they only show moderated replies. Politicians are going to start creating their own Safe Spaces so they don’t have to read any discontent or criticism. Maybe we can get Butters to do the moderation?
- GauntletWizard 3y agoThey already do, most politicians refuse to be seen outside of rallies. It is not necessary to mock them to their face to mock them. And mock them you should.