> Ms. Greene’s official Congressional account, @RepMTG, remains active because tweets from that account did not violate the service’s rules.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/rep-greene-suggests-a-national...
* It's really stupid that Twitter makes old tweets invisible. First they're easily accessible by other means to technically savvy people via archive.org or whatever, so this just throws barriers in the way of the least technically educated. Second, it fosters paranoia and mistrust because conversations about the tweets begin to resemble rumors rather than fact.
Twitter itself is under no more of an obligation to publish material from a politician than a newspaper is. Both are corporations that operate under obligations to their shareholders. If a politician really wants to publish something on Twitter, they can pay for promoted ads just like they can with a newspaper. Expecting social media platforms to promote their message for free is hopelessly naive and does not match how democracy has worked for centuries. Sure, newspapers have published political messages for free via editorials and stories, but they are not obligated to do so. Getting the message out has always required time from volunteers and/or money towards supporting the cause.
I don't think this is really true. Most people in the US don't use Twitter. Not to mention that many users are following entertainment based users or aren't fully consuming posts by those they follow.
Twitter is just an additional stream/supplement to town halls, email lists, websites, news coverage, etc.
> Political fortunes can swing on bad press releases.
> Political fortunes can swing on bad interviews.
> Political fortunes can swing on bad comments at private dinners that become public.
As they should.
It's funny when politicians with entire staff committed to disseminating information complain about censorship.
This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource.
Why does the government need to built its own social media platform? We regulate other privately-owned utilities all the time. Cell phone companies, power utilities, water services, waste management, etc. This is no different - social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are fundamental services in our modern society and it is unacceptable for users to be unfairly discriminated against or banned based on their viewpoints.
> Having the government take over a private business because it decides the free speech rights of politicians should be more important than the free speech and association rights of everyone else is a bad idea.
We already do this all the time in many different ways - it’s called regulation and it is not the same as “taking over” a business, so spare me the hyperbole. The free speech of individuals is more important that the association rights of Twitter or the cabal of other tech oligopolies that are all immune to competition due to their market capitalization and network effects.
> This isn't like the FCC regulating the airwaves, the internet isn't a limited spectrum, and there's no reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information over it is actually a scarce resource.
Actually it does bear some similarities. The scarcity is not around a ‘spectrum’ but it does exist because these products rely on network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). These network effects mean that access to users and attention is limited and there is a barrier to entry that prevents market competition from functioning properly. So there absolutely is reason to act as if the capacity to disseminate information is a scarce resource.
Plus, are we trying to force companies to let all speech through (antisemitism OK? True racism OK?), or just to force them to carry what they deem "misinformation"?
It's hard to understand exactly what the goal of this "regulation" are and it's even harder to imagine a regulatory scheme that would accomplish those goals without major unwanted side effects.
It's simply an attempt at an end-run around the free press, that's why it is so popular with the extremists and that's why the extremists do their damnest to create their own 'safe space' for their horrifying little screeds.
However, there’s presumably nothing stopping her from issuing this nonsense via press release, or on a blog, or similar.
Open protocols should be the default. We have W3C recommendations that make the federated social web possible.
I agree.
> the audience will move if necessary.
If we let that be the plan, then our filter bubble problem will get even worse. Everyone left of a certain point will only be on Twitter, and everyone else will only be on the fediverse. It's a lot less likely that people will follow anyone they disagree with if they'd need another account they couldn't otherwise use.
Walled-garden social is sort of the same thing in a way.