Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocd | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how any government or business (especially the former) can justify using X at this point when it doesn't serve the public interest or the interest of customers who deserve at least some choice. It's as unreasonable for them as using Instagram or a dating app for something intended for broad reach and accessibility.

I don't particularly like Bluesky, but it's publicly readable and has RSS. Any real solution would be protocol or standard instead of yet another closed service, though. For now, I see Nitter and XCancel as a temporary fix until people abandon it for whatever practical, economic, or political reason(s) they may have.

View on HN

The reason is simple: they were using Twitter when it was publicly readable and had RSS, and they have no selfish reason to stop. (Selfless reasons don't count, everybody is selfish)

Well if they want their posts to be readable they do have a selfish reason.

You go where your people are. I think it’s very reasonable to post updates on Facebook and X.

> I don't see how any government or business (especially the former) can justify using X at this point

Open RSS wrote about exactly this a couple weeks ago [1]. Bluesky being publicly readable with RSS is an improvement. But government offices should be publishing on their own RSS feeds, and the platforms should be secondary, not the other way around. The amount of policy that gets announced on social media without even a mention on their own website is bizarre. Why isn't posting their content off platform legally required at this point?

[1] https://openrss.org/blog/government-updates-belong-in-an-ope...

I extend this to people. I understand old habits and what not, but I'm surprised at the culture on social media. Twitter is literally orthodox white supremacy or however they brand it. Quite odd, but not considering current politics. We've decided to devolve.

> I don't see how any government or business (especially the former) can justify using X

It makes me so mad. The Paris public transportation company (RATP) owns not one but two whole apps. Yet, whenever there's an incident they immediately reach for X (on which I can't access their posts), while their apps lag behind.

As far as I'm concerned, my government should issue a blanket ban on public actors using social medias for communication.

> I don't see how

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just remember other people have their own and they are entitled to theirs, and no one opinion is 'right'.

> I don't see how any government or business (especially the former) can justify using X at this point

If your logic is that some citizens won't be able to read what is posted there, then I assume you similarly object to other social media platforms, newspapers, cable TV stations, etc.

If my local government or some local business was limited to using one specific newspaper, this would indeed be a problem.

And in reverse, having a concentration of readers (users) on one platform, means that whoever controls that newspaper (platform) gets to be kingmaker for the government and the businesses.

Free speech as a constitutional requirement binding on a government to allow it is great; that government then using one specific private corporation that can use its own status as a non-government actor to have free speech rights rather than free speech responsibilities, means it is a de facto loss of free speech for everyone else.

There is no constitutional entitlement to receive government information through one's preferred newspaper, website, or social network.

> it is a de facto loss of free speech for everyone else.

You seem to be confused about what 1A is and what it guarantees. It is a restriction on government action against your speech, not a general requirement that everyone have equal access to every privately owned communications channel.

OP's point is that creating a favored restricted platform natrually allows for restricting of free speech because of a private "compnay policy". ("allows for" is doing heavy lifting here btw)

Should a government choose to communicate essential facts only through a restricted medium it is obviously no longer serving the larger public interest and thus no longer a government of "a people for a people".

Musk and fellow techoligarchs can have their private platforms.

Free peoples' governments and responsible social organizations must treat them as 'for profit entertainment channels' and not give them any legitimacy in the political space.

Re:

> There is no constitutional entitlement to receive government information through one's preferred newspaper, website, or social network.

and

> You seem to be confused about what 1A is and what it guarantees.

I am arguing that there should be, and why; I am not arguing what is.

Also I was careful not to use the words "first amendment"; this is because this argument, and this problem, applies more generally than just the USA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com