Hacker News Reader

Comment by SllX | Hacker News Reader

Private servers, private property, mate. Don’t ruin the moment.

I think it's relatively easy to imagine quite a few scenarios where this falls short of the rigor we'd prefer to have for such an argument.

I have said a lot on this topic, just not in this thread, possibly not in this thread yet.

Yeah sure, but this is also international relations, diplomacy (or lack of it), etc.

And diplomatic channels including back channels are the gold standard for diplomatic and undiplomatic communications. Let’s not ruin a good thing by replacing them with Twitter.

I get it. But also Twitter have positioned themselves as this kind of communication medium.

So they position themselves as a broadcast medium for politicians, elites, journalists, etc. and then these people use it like that, but then Twitter wants to maintain a particular narrative.

So, basically, you can have at it, but only what we allow you to say.

If it comes to that, they will wither as users evaporate.

They mislead people for years about exactly what they are.

I’m not complaining that they finally came to an epiphany that what they aspired to be was something that they could never truly be.

> And diplomatic channels including back channels are the gold standard for diplomatic and undiplomatic communications. Let’s not ruin a good thing by replacing them with Twitter.

To even confuse Twitter with a diplomatic channel is a bit mind-boggling. It's a PR/propaganda channel and sometimes a way to distribute informational notices to the public. That's it.

Edit: Yep, we agree. I was just amplifying the point a bit :)

We are in agreement then. :)

Twitter is a business, not the State Department.

Perhaps they ought to give the US State Department moderation control (to suspend) of the handles for heads of state?

Does that sound like a good idea? No? Oh, but if Twitter does it, then it's good, even if they know nothing of what the State Department knows?

You seem to be very confused about the differences between what governments have the power to do and what companies and individuals have the power to do.

The default position in the US and many other nations is that governments have no power except that which is conferred to them by a constitution (i.e. default deny). Meanwhile, the people have freedom subject to laws restricting their behavior (i.e. default allow). This means Twitter, Facebook, etc. can restrict speech on their platforms in ways governments often cannot, in the absence of laws that compel them not to. And in any event, such laws may well be unconstitutional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com