Off-topic, but can we acknowledge the insanity that is using Twitter for political communication? You literally have the people in charge of our government tweeting pictures of text because...
Off-topic, but can we acknowledge the insanity that is using Twitter for political communication?
You literally have the people in charge of our government tweeting pictures of text because they're using a platform not designed in the slightest for any sort of substantive discussion.
I'm sure if you sat down and tried you could invent a worse discussion platform for large, complex issues... but Twitter does seem to be doing it's best to fill that void via the internet equivalent of natural selection
I’m honestly dumbfounded that we have reached a point where, instead of having a press conference and a true dialogue with the media over policy and events, we have a leader who makes major...
I’m honestly dumbfounded that we have reached a point where, instead of having a press conference and a true dialogue with the media over policy and events, we have a leader who makes major announcements over a platform like Twitter, which, as you point out, is terrible for discussions of complex issues.
I believe at this point they are past even remotely wanting a discussion. It's all about exposure and Twitter is what gives them that. The people who reply screaming absurdities are people who are...
I believe at this point they are past even remotely wanting a discussion. It's all about exposure and Twitter is what gives them that. The people who reply screaming absurdities are people who are already aboard the "hate train", but supporters get further brainwashed in the propaganda and it's an even bigger win if you manage to persuade someone who was on the fence. It's absolutely insane, but until something major happens, it would also be insane for them not to use it.
I like the idea of Twitter as a platform for communication between politics and the people, but not so much in practice. Twitter has the fantastic advantage of being a social network that is both...
I like the idea of Twitter as a platform for communication between politics and the people, but not so much in practice. Twitter has the fantastic advantage of being a social network that is both user-oriented [as opposed to community oriented e.g. reddit] but also subscription based. Usually user-oriented social media are networks of two-way relationships – you don't add someone as a friend on Facebook, you request to be their friend, and they have to consent to making that connection. Twitter instead allows anyone to subscribe to Donald Trump's tweets and @ tag him without any requirements. This basically puts everyone on the same playing field. Sure, people with more followers have a greater platform to broadcast their message, but there's nothing separating your tweets from Donald Trump's. You're both just users. You could hold a conversation with him right now if he felt like it.
Where it all falls apart is the character limit. Restricting users to just 140 [now 280] characters is basically forcing conversations to reduce themselves to witty quips, one-liners, and sloganeering on a soapbox. You can't conduct a reddit-style AMA on Twitter because you can't fit any meaningful question or response into just 280 characters. This comment alone is already nearly 1300 characters. Maybe my writing lacks concision, but as you've just shown, the format basically requires anything of substance to circumvent the limitations by uploading images of text or videos of you saying everything that wouldn't have fit in a tweet.
I think Twitter lays an interesting foundation for how political communication could work in the 21st century, but it definitely has some kinks to work out.
What's crazy is that for previous Federal level politicians, the ruling came down that their "personal" social media accounts do not fall under the Federal Regulations for Public Employees, even...
What's crazy is that for previous Federal level politicians, the ruling came down that their "personal" social media accounts do not fall under the Federal Regulations for Public Employees, even if they post information relating to their public duties.
That's one major fact that let Obama and Clinton sidestep LOTS of accountability.
Personally and professionally (I'm a 32 year long IT professional, Sys Admin and have worked as a government employee multiple times), having had to agree to not post work related things on my personal accounts, I NEVER understood how anyone gets away with using their personal accounts for government work. It just NOT supposed to be done. It violates Federal Ethics rules and most State level ones too. It has for at least 20 years.
Add to that, the top-level politicians have ONLY supposed to be using government services for things like this. Twitter, FB, Reddit, etc. were never vetted or approved.
So now we have conflicting decisions/rulings on the use of private industry social media services and if they are to be controlled by the government. THAT is really what this is leading towards.
If the government officially rules that anything government related must be controlled by the government, whoa boy...
PS: NO politician, not Trump, not Obama, not my local city council members, should be using private social media services for their duties.
I agree with just about everything you said. I don't think we're headed that direction and I don't think this ruling moves us that direction. IMO, this ruling is pretty narrow and says when you're...
I agree with just about everything you said.
If the government officially rules that anything government related must be controlled by the government, whoa boy...
I don't think we're headed that direction and I don't think this ruling moves us that direction. IMO, this ruling is pretty narrow and says when you're using a private account on twitter for official public statements, e.g. hiring people, firing cabinet members, etc., it's a government regulated forum and as such the government can't engage in viewpoint discrimination via blocking.
Clinton and others using private email for gov. business is undeniably problematic, but it's not the same thing as what the court is addressing here, nor is it part of the same 'slippery slope' from a jurisprudence perspective.
You have to be where the people are. Whether that's on facebook, twitter, late night TV, the street corner in the newspaper or wherever. Politicians have always spoken and presented policy ideas...
PS: NO politician, not Trump, not Obama, not my local city council members, should be using private social media services for their duties.
You have to be where the people are. Whether that's on facebook, twitter, late night TV, the street corner in the newspaper or wherever.
Politicians have always spoken and presented policy ideas in private media to exclusive audiences, behind paywalls etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with many of the other sentiments in your post, especially how silly it is that the rules are so different for politicians and other emplyees.
I think we need a federal ruling on how politicians are allowed to use social media. I don't think it would be a good idea to ask that politicians never communicate with the public through modern...
I think we need a federal ruling on how politicians are allowed to use social media. I don't think it would be a good idea to ask that politicians never communicate with the public through modern channels. The gap between citizen and representative is already wide enough. What's important though is that we lay some ground rules for what goes on the personal account and what goes on the official account. I'm personally okay with @realDonaldTrump hosting content like this that in no way is meant to reflect the office he holds [not that I necessarily agree with what he's saying]. Stuff like this, however, should definitely be relegated to the official @POTUS or @WhiteHouse accounts created specifically for the purpose of representing the office of the president.
And obviously, all of it should be under great scrutiny to make sure they aren't violating ethics rules.
This is the explainer from Eric Goldman's blog. He's a law professor at Santa Clara. He's one of the better voices in the legal community at explaining and tracking changes that affect how people...
This is the explainer from Eric Goldman's blog. He's a law professor at Santa Clara. He's one of the better voices in the legal community at explaining and tracking changes that affect how people interact online.
The questions raised at the end re: the limits of what politicians can and can't do to restrict access to a twitter profile are also fascinating:
The questions raised at the end re: the limits of what politicians can and can't do to restrict access to a twitter profile are also fascinating:
More broadly, the court’s discussion acknowledges that the character of a Twitter account can change over time, and perhaps the President can take steps to make his account less broadly accessible, or make it more personally focused? Can he lock the account? Can he limit it to his supporters? Can he ask users who wish to follow to fill out a questionnaire before being approved? (I still maintain that Twitter and other networks should have default rules for politicians that they cannot override. This would be in keeping with Twitter’s role as First Amendment champion.) I don’t think we have clear answers to those questions. We know that he can’t block people based on their viewpoints, but perhaps that still leaves him room to limit access in a non-viewpoint discriminatory way? The court notes that one of the challenges with the forum approach is that the government has relative freedom to simply close a forum. (Perhaps it’s an open question whether it may close the forum for discriminatory reasons, but generally speaking, courts recognize the right to shut down the forum.) Does this mean politicians can simply block everyone, thereby not allowing anyone to participate in the interactive space immediately surrounding their statements?
Off-topic, but can we acknowledge the insanity that is using Twitter for political communication?
You literally have the people in charge of our government tweeting pictures of text because they're using a platform not designed in the slightest for any sort of substantive discussion.
I'm sure if you sat down and tried you could invent a worse discussion platform for large, complex issues... but Twitter does seem to be doing it's best to fill that void via the internet equivalent of natural selection
I’m honestly dumbfounded that we have reached a point where, instead of having a press conference and a true dialogue with the media over policy and events, we have a leader who makes major announcements over a platform like Twitter, which, as you point out, is terrible for discussions of complex issues.
I believe at this point they are past even remotely wanting a discussion. It's all about exposure and Twitter is what gives them that. The people who reply screaming absurdities are people who are already aboard the "hate train", but supporters get further brainwashed in the propaganda and it's an even bigger win if you manage to persuade someone who was on the fence. It's absolutely insane, but until something major happens, it would also be insane for them not to use it.
I like the idea of Twitter as a platform for communication between politics and the people, but not so much in practice. Twitter has the fantastic advantage of being a social network that is both user-oriented [as opposed to community oriented e.g. reddit] but also subscription based. Usually user-oriented social media are networks of two-way relationships – you don't add someone as a friend on Facebook, you request to be their friend, and they have to consent to making that connection. Twitter instead allows anyone to subscribe to Donald Trump's tweets and @ tag him without any requirements. This basically puts everyone on the same playing field. Sure, people with more followers have a greater platform to broadcast their message, but there's nothing separating your tweets from Donald Trump's. You're both just users. You could hold a conversation with him right now if he felt like it.
Where it all falls apart is the character limit. Restricting users to just 140 [now 280] characters is basically forcing conversations to reduce themselves to witty quips, one-liners, and sloganeering on a soapbox. You can't conduct a reddit-style AMA on Twitter because you can't fit any meaningful question or response into just 280 characters. This comment alone is already nearly 1300 characters. Maybe my writing lacks concision, but as you've just shown, the format basically requires anything of substance to circumvent the limitations by uploading images of text or videos of you saying everything that wouldn't have fit in a tweet.
I think Twitter lays an interesting foundation for how political communication could work in the 21st century, but it definitely has some kinks to work out.
What's crazy is that for previous Federal level politicians, the ruling came down that their "personal" social media accounts do not fall under the Federal Regulations for Public Employees, even if they post information relating to their public duties.
That's one major fact that let Obama and Clinton sidestep LOTS of accountability.
Personally and professionally (I'm a 32 year long IT professional, Sys Admin and have worked as a government employee multiple times), having had to agree to not post work related things on my personal accounts, I NEVER understood how anyone gets away with using their personal accounts for government work. It just NOT supposed to be done. It violates Federal Ethics rules and most State level ones too. It has for at least 20 years.
Add to that, the top-level politicians have ONLY supposed to be using government services for things like this. Twitter, FB, Reddit, etc. were never vetted or approved.
So now we have conflicting decisions/rulings on the use of private industry social media services and if they are to be controlled by the government. THAT is really what this is leading towards.
If the government officially rules that anything government related must be controlled by the government, whoa boy...
PS: NO politician, not Trump, not Obama, not my local city council members, should be using private social media services for their duties.
I agree with just about everything you said.
I don't think we're headed that direction and I don't think this ruling moves us that direction. IMO, this ruling is pretty narrow and says when you're using a private account on twitter for official public statements, e.g. hiring people, firing cabinet members, etc., it's a government regulated forum and as such the government can't engage in viewpoint discrimination via blocking.
Clinton and others using private email for gov. business is undeniably problematic, but it's not the same thing as what the court is addressing here, nor is it part of the same 'slippery slope' from a jurisprudence perspective.
You have to be where the people are. Whether that's on facebook, twitter, late night TV, the street corner in the newspaper or wherever.
Politicians have always spoken and presented policy ideas in private media to exclusive audiences, behind paywalls etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with many of the other sentiments in your post, especially how silly it is that the rules are so different for politicians and other emplyees.
I think we need a federal ruling on how politicians are allowed to use social media. I don't think it would be a good idea to ask that politicians never communicate with the public through modern channels. The gap between citizen and representative is already wide enough. What's important though is that we lay some ground rules for what goes on the personal account and what goes on the official account. I'm personally okay with @realDonaldTrump hosting content like this that in no way is meant to reflect the office he holds [not that I necessarily agree with what he's saying]. Stuff like this, however, should definitely be relegated to the official @POTUS or @WhiteHouse accounts created specifically for the purpose of representing the office of the president.
And obviously, all of it should be under great scrutiny to make sure they aren't violating ethics rules.
This is the explainer from Eric Goldman's blog. He's a law professor at Santa Clara. He's one of the better voices in the legal community at explaining and tracking changes that affect how people interact online.
The questions raised at the end re: the limits of what politicians can and can't do to restrict access to a twitter profile are also fascinating: