3 ms·

Not taking account this specific case, but the general habit that news, be it small or big, are published first/only on Twitter/Facebook/IG/Tiktok etc. is bad a

by 0xCE0 2y ago

Not taking account this specific case, but the general habit that news, be it small or big, are published first/only on Twitter/Facebook/IG/Tiktok etc. is bad and sad. It is bad both for readers and organizations themselves. For readers, it is confusing and messy to know which platforms acts as a medium for communications. And usually these platforms require login, or nags for it, and doesn't show posts on chronologically to get clear understanding of the news events. For organizations, there is a risk of shadow banning/closure of account, therefore not having any control of archivability and visibility of communications. The best and clearest approach for communications probably is your own website with comms section, and post one-sentence summary + link to your website for a variety of social medias for greater visibility. There should be only one long-standing statement/source of truth for each newsworth event. Except of course if your strategy is to manipulate audience with confusion.

sailfast 2y ago
It's also contrary to a number of federal records act laws, conflict of interest and ethics laws, etc. Folks don't seem to care about that though... Also good thing the primary audience for Social Security recipients is in the X user demographic? I gotta say this could have been an incredible opportunity to revolutionize technology for the people but it was squandered by self-dealing morons.
- exe34 2y ago
  those laws only apply to competitors to Twitter.
ljm 2y ago
I think Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is a solid thesis on the sudden rise of communication and its steady decay. In less than 100 years we went from sending news via envoys or on horseback to compressing it and sending it over a wire. The only time you would ever go to the effort to send news, back then, was if it was important or vital, but crucially it was actionable. The decay comes from using the same channels, or even creating new channels, to disseminate info that is not meant to be actioned but simply consumed. The regulations around that production were stripped away and so was the trust that the info you now consume is valid.
- exe34 2y ago
  Himmelsbriefs started around the 6th century.
loeber 2y ago
It's almost like we need a Twitter-style platform that also acts as an RSS reader!
- 0xCE0 2y ago
  The problem here boils down to Expanse-style "communication buffers", that stores and routes messages broadcasted/singlecasted by entities.
theshrike79 2y ago
This is because the platforms deincentivize posts that link to the original source by pushing them lower in the algorithm. Because the best way would be to put the content on the official pages and post the link (+ relevant excerpt) to social media. But that takes engagement away from the sites and they hate that.
adfm 2y ago
The people that assume the roles within government should speak directly through government-controlled domains exclusively. You’ve got those TLDs for a reason, folks. Nobody else has this right. It is the canonical source of truth because it is fully controlled by the government itself. The public are welcome to comment outside the domain and point to it like any other source, but unless you’re an official (holding office), what you say is your own opinion and covered by the first amendment. I’m not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion, but what officials say outside of their specifically assigned domains (which supposedly are funded by tax dollars and require oversight) should be considered personal opinion and not carry the weight of the office they hold and should be made to declare as much. Consider the Brown act or the emoluments clause within this context. There are certain things officials are on the hook for that the general public is not. Officials have restricted communications and declarations requirements that the public does not. And anything communicated over commercial channels outside of government oversight should be open to prosecution like anybody else. Blow your hot air where we know it’s within official capacity and on the record or post as a private citizen, like everyone else.

by 0xCE0 2y ago

sailfast 2y ago

It's also contrary to a number of federal records act laws, conflict of interest and ethics laws, etc. Folks don't seem to care about that though... Also good thing the primary audience for Social Security recipients is in the X user demographic? I gotta say this could have been an incredible opportunity to revolutionize technology for the people but it was squandered by self-dealing morons.

exe34 2y ago
those laws only apply to competitors to Twitter.

ljm 2y ago

I think Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is a solid thesis on the sudden rise of communication and its steady decay. In less than 100 years we went from sending news via envoys or on horseback to compressing it and sending it over a wire. The only time you would ever go to the effort to send news, back then, was if it was important or vital, but crucially it was actionable. The decay comes from using the same channels, or even creating new channels, to disseminate info that is not meant to be actioned but simply consumed. The regulations around that production were stripped away and so was the trust that the info you now consume is valid.

exe34 2y ago
Himmelsbriefs started around the 6th century.

loeber 2y ago

It's almost like we need a Twitter-style platform that also acts as an RSS reader!

0xCE0 2y ago
The problem here boils down to Expanse-style "communication buffers", that stores and routes messages broadcasted/singlecasted by entities.

theshrike79 2y ago

This is because the platforms deincentivize posts that link to the original source by pushing them lower in the algorithm. Because the best way would be to put the content on the official pages and post the link (+ relevant excerpt) to social media. But that takes engagement away from the sites and they hate that.

adfm 2y ago

The people that assume the roles within government should speak directly through government-controlled domains exclusively. You’ve got those TLDs for a reason, folks. Nobody else has this right. It is the canonical source of truth because it is fully controlled by the government itself. The public are welcome to comment outside the domain and point to it like any other source, but unless you’re an official (holding office), what you say is your own opinion and covered by the first amendment. I’m not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion, but what officials say outside of their specifically assigned domains (which supposedly are funded by tax dollars and require oversight) should be considered personal opinion and not carry the weight of the office they hold and should be made to declare as much. Consider the Brown act or the emoluments clause within this context. There are certain things officials are on the hook for that the general public is not. Officials have restricted communications and declarations requirements that the public does not. And anything communicated over commercial channels outside of government oversight should be open to prosecution like anybody else. Blow your hot air where we know it’s within official capacity and on the record or post as a private citizen, like everyone else.