twitter is the Wild West right now, full of bots and comments that violate rules but take a while to get enforced.
Blocks solve that. But also deprive people of being able to hear announcements.
Splitting the ability to listen to a broadcast and the ability to broadcast on a broadcast seems sensible. You could, after all, be removed from a courtroom or government press conference for being disruptive.
I imagine this will more likely raise issue with the use of private social platforms for public statements rather than whether they can block comments.
The problem is that Twitter won't even let you link to a tweet by a user you've been blocked by. That's definitely not okay.
Politicians are going to start creating their own Safe Spaces so they don’t have to read any discontent or criticism. Maybe we can get Butters to do the moderation?
Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. should have no right to censor public discourse.
The second issue you mentioned is part of a broader legal issue about the degree to which the government burdens access to the government's speech. The question is not just "can you still access the speech through legal means?" but also "how difficult did the government make it for you to access the speech?"
If you get blocked then you don't see the posts unless you're logged out. This is due to the platform's implementation of blocking, but there it doesn't eliminate the First Amendment question about whether you can see the post. In order to know that a government official made a particular post you would have to periodically visit the government official's account page while logged out. If you weren't blocked you could have gotten notifications sent to wherever, or you could've watched your own feed at your leisure without having to check the official's account page like a hawk. By blocking you under these conditions, the government official would place a significant burden on your access to the speech (a First Amendment violation), even if the prohibition on access is not a complete block.
This is not true, beyond discrimination against protected classes. The New York Times is a non-governmental business. The First Amendment freedom of association is freedom to do business with anyone, or refuse business to anyone. A newspaper company can ban whoever and refuse to sell to whoever, so long as no government or government official coerces the company to do so.
> One wrongthink on twitter can get you banned from there
As a non-governmental company, Twitter has a First Amendment freedom of association. Twitter can legally ban you (not saying should ban you) from viewing a government's posts so long as no government or government official coerces Twitter to do so.
The government official should mirror the contents of their social media posts on a freely accessible government website. I would favor a new law requiring mirroring and archival in this vein.
On the other hand, everyone knows someone who got banned from one platfor or another, and if not in person, there have been many articles of people getting banned from random platforms for random stupid reasons, even just saying a foreign word ( https://news.yahoo.com/japanese-apex-legends-players-being-2... )
I live in a non-english speaking country, and a word exchange of "Is Marko there?" - "He's not" would here be: "Je marko tam?" - "Ni ga" ... guess how the last sentance is pronounced, and how that could get misinterpreted if used in a video uploaded to eg. twitter/facebook/whatever.
Twitter never has been treated that way, and is rapidly becoming more and more private and less and less a communal resource that is equally accessible to all.
> It is not that different from using television or radio or private phone lines to conduct business in the past
Terrestrial broadcasts in the US in the past are the subject of this comparison. Whether my description of said historical broadcasts is applicable to modern cable and satellite radio is immaterial, because we're not talking about modern cable and radio usage. Yes those are different, but they're also not used as official channels for government communication any more the way that broadcast TV and radio used to be. They've been transferred
They hold a press conference and television and radio stations show up and broadcast them. The stations aren't under any obligation to show up and if they declined to do so the officials would get no airtime without using the emergency broadcast option.
1. Communication on a novelty social media platform that limits the amount of I formation you can relay at any one point, by design and that [probably] less than 25% of Americans use.
2. Communication over a set of public frequencies that nearly every American can access free of charge from their home.
3. Communication over a regulated public utility that every American with a home can access?
If the idea to centrally register every reader before they were allowed to read news articles had been raised in the 50s or 60s, it would have rightly been regarded as undemocratic. In our age it passes without discussion, and any suggestion it may be problematic is regarded as useless nostalgia.
??? Do you actually use your local politicians Twitter to see if there's an active shooter?
During the pandemic, my state governor had an official Q&A regarding the state's policies, on Facebook.
I couldn't participate without accepting Facebook's T&Cs.
I'm not sure if that was illegal, but I'd like it to be.
Actually, yes, we should expect this.
Why not just have a template app that's open source and publicly financed, and the only local part is configuration data like name of the mayor, specific phone #s etc. US local government is already massively duplicative and wasteful.
Open governance sometimes requires considerations, e.g. public access, that aren't always crucial for private commerce.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/23/16923080/hawaii-governor-...
When there was murderer on the loose recently where I live we definitely watched Twitter more than anything else for updates. The traditional media was incredibly delayed and their reporting was awful and inconsistent.
When our home was in trouble due to major wildfire, local journalists and citizen journalists on YouTube and Twitter was the most reliable place for updates.
Where else would you recommend besides Twitter/X and official channels?
I don’t see why government officials who are performing paid work as public government officials should be allowed to hide or delete access to their work in any capacity.
If they don’t want to expose themselves to the public then don’t use the channel to communicate in the first place.
You don’t have to use social media for official communications.
I think this is mostly a problem among small towns, counties, etc. so residents of big cities may not notice it as much (like the death of real local journalism). I think it usually boils down to the fact that it's easier for a lay person to update a Facebook or Twitter page than it is to maintain their own website, and IT people are expensive.
I'm in the US Army, and "Big Army" at the top level does OK with its websites (e.g. army.mil), but it also consists of many geographically distributed, semi-independent, sub-organizations (units) that each have a handful of people doing public affairs work. The official websites at those lower levels have been rotting for years, and public affairs folks have freely admitted to me that they don't know how to update their official websites besides changing the photo and biography of the new commander once every two years.