You're comparing apples and oranges here. If you work in government (and I'm in no way convinced most of these rogue accounts actually do), then the Trump administration can absolutely "disappear" your job if they trace the account back to you.
The dangers of using a real name account are very different for private citizens than they are for government employees. This is in no way specific to Trump.
edit: here is a link to the official guidance on the Hatch Act - https://osc.gov/Pages/The-Hatch-Act-Frequently-Asked-Questio...
[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-franks/
didn't realize qualified immunity extended to the government as employer.
That applies in private companies, government agencies, and well, basically everywhere.
Complaining about Comcast did result in someone being fired.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-e...
Apoliticality and silence are two different things.
See: the longstanding bargain struck at the EPA that "scientists can do science" but "only administrators make policy decisions"
Which, seen in best light, means that policy decisions sometimes need to be made against scientific advice, due to other priorities. In worst light (and more true), so that administrators can push whatever agenda they want regardless of scientific consensus.
Our government's relationship with actual facts has always been at the whim of politics. Trump's just making it worse instead of better.
That said do you think Obama endeavored to keep around many statisticians and sociologists whom did polls like the Pew study that proved that 12% of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing of civilian "enemies of Islam" can be justified[0]? Politicians fund research that benefits their agenda obviously.
[0]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religio...
The difference is quite apparent, though:
[Obama Era]: "[...] established scientific integrity standards and previous media guidance “encouraging, but not requiring, USDA scientists to communicate with the media about their scientific findings.”
[Trump memo]: “Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content,”
That latter memo was amended/rescinded/watered down a day later after it got to the media. But it probably shows quite clearly what the thinking in the WH is.
> Politicians fund research that benefits their agenda obviously.
That is not obvious, and it is largely wrong. It's the sort of negative stereotype of politicians that got us into this mess.
Most federally funded scientific research is funded through the National Science Foundation. It evaluates grant applications as follows:
"Reviews are carried out by ad hoc reviewers and panels of independent scientists, engineers, and educators who are experts in the relevant fields of study, and who are selected by the NSF with particular attention to avoiding conflicts of interest. For example, reviewers cannot work at the NSF itself, nor for the institution that employs the proposing researchers. All proposal evaluations are confidential: the proposing researchers may see them, but they do not see the names of the reviewers" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation#Gr...)
Then, there are directly-funded institutions, mostly in defence-related subjects. Examples are DARPA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA, Lawrence Livermore etc. 99% of what these institutions do is not "Study: what is worse? Handguns or Muslims?". Instead, it's basic research, the overwhelming majority of which is neither liberal nor conservative. In any case, there are 10 layers of admin between a scientist and the White House, all filled with career scientists who would resist attempts of undue influence and some of which have the phone number of their Congressman or some guy at the Wall Street Journal.
The US executive is also not a single monolithic hierarchy. Witness the episode where the acting Attorney General refused to instruct her lawyers to defend the "muslim ban": the president does not actually have the authority to overrule her. He is required to fire her, and keep firing until he gets an AG who complies.
That may seem like a roundabout way to get to the same result. But in practice, it makes it almost impossible to directly tell the scientists in the trenches what to do. You'd need to to fire everyone in the chain of command, and keep doing so until they all happen to agree with you. And only the very top of these institutions are appointed by the WH.
Research institutions are usually also organised as public-private partnerships with a structure much more independent than the Justice Department outlined above. Here's Lawrence Livermore's:
"The LLNL Director reports to the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) Board of Governors, a group of key scientific, academic, national security and business leaders from the LLNS partner companies that jointly own and control LLNS. The LLNS Board of Governors has a total of 16 positions, with six of these Governors constituting an Executive Committee. All decisions of the Board are made by the Governors on the Executive Committee. The other Governors are advisory to the Executive Committee and do not have voting rights.
The University of California is entitled to appoint three Governors to the Executive Committee, including the Chair. Bechtel is also entitled to appoint three Governors to the Executive Committee, including the Vice Chair. One of the Bechtel Governors must be a representative of Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) or the Washington Division of URS Corporation (URS), who is nominated jointly by B&W and URS each year, and who must be approved and appointed by Bechtel. The Executive Committee has a seventh Governor who is appointed by Battelle; they are non-voting and advisory to the Executive Committee. The remaining Board positions are known as Independent Governors (also referred to as Outside Governors), and are selected from among individuals, preferably of national stature, and can not be employees or officers of the partner companies."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_La...)
People employed by the government.
So I think these steps are useful, but not "because Trump". Rather, "because presidents".
(Also, not sure why you're being downvoted. HN has taken to suppressing political views that are valid viewpoints, but one group or another doesn't agree with. If we're going to talk politics, we should actually talk about it -- not shut down views we don't like.)
That is some public service.
Executive is doing something illegal? Take them to court!
Why get fired? Why not send it to wikileaks? Why not pick up the phone and contact NYTimes? Heck, there are legions of representatives in congress and senate who would love to talk to you and give you immunity to boot!
These people -- /whoever they are/ -- are creating the perception of alternative governmental outlets. No one who cares about this nation would do that.
For the first time ever, we have a president who doesn't seems to share that goal.
Murdering people you don't like.
Intelligence agencies closely linked to big businesses.
Fueling the economy by criminalizing normal people.
Militarized police force that kills innocent people regularly, for no reason.
>No one who cares about this nation would do that.
"I don't like you, therefore you can't be a patriot."
We're talking about government employees being worried that expressing their personal views will get them fired. GP said:
> Better take all these steps so you can tweet "climate change is real" and "trump is a poop"
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-turkey-arrests-1656-social...
From the lives of the people involved to the stability of the democratic institutions themselves, those are very real and very high stakes. It would be extremely disingenuous and insulting to pretend that the intent of the article was to anonymously tweet "trump is a poop".
Actual, factual, courageous, whistle blowing and dirty laundry airing:
Accepting this makes it trivial for non-governmental elements, or foreign governments, to put up e.g. @AltStateDepartment for every single governmental org. That is not going to promote "stability" of our system. In fact, this is precisely what I would do if I wanted to entirely demoralize Jane/Joe public and undermine /the public and democractic state/.
The political party most aligned with conservatism currently controls 2/3 of the federal government and will most likely soon control the final 1/3.
Do you honestly believe a movement can be counter-culture and control all branches of the federal government?
I'm sorry, but that seems asinine to me.
For example, the Affordable Care Act was essentially a copy of a plan originally put forth by Republicans, but now conservatives oppose it as some type of radical leftist socialism. The EPA was created by a Republican administration. Reagan granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. The Republican party has moved to the right and dragged the culture with it.
I know it's easier to solicit donations and energize the base by pretending you're in some counter-culture fight against those powerful elites, but that is not the truth I see.
Anyway not much is resolved by figuring out which side is a resistance, trying to resolve it definitively is like resolving a kaleidoscope, which in turn makes one susceptible to superficial narratives or whims. Even iron-fisted Stalin could say he was really the underdog against global capitalism; nothing was gained by those who believed him. Much better to insist on interpreting who's in the right based on accuracy, principles, and consequences.