I have a right to use twitter to the same extent as you have a right to use lemmy. Others not having a phone/computer should not infringe on my right to use existing technology, services or software.
The right to choose to use twitter is markedly different from making it a universal right to be able to access twitter.
It’s also insufficient that I can reach them outside twitter only by non-microblogging means.
Public protest existed for centuries prior to Twitter, and it’s not as if the only choices are Twitter or private letter. There are many other channels of communication around, some of which public.
I have a right to use twitter to the same extent as you have a right to use lemmy.
Not in the slightest. Twitter is like a private road controlled by a single gatekeeping corporation whose private property rights are the only rights to speak of – and it’s run by a right-wing populist who controls who can participate. Lemmy is like a network of public roads without centralized ownership, where the concept of rights is not even needed because there is no central corporate control.
The right to choose to use twitter is markedly different from making it a universal right to be able to access twitter.
Why are you talking about a universal right to access Twitter? AFAIK, no one here endorses that.
Either you lick Musk’s boots or you bounce. Those are your choices. Politicians who lick Musk’s boots and drive exclusion cannot effectively represent the people.
Public protest existed for centuries prior to Twitter
Those are different times. We are in Twitter times. Shouting on a street corner brings a smaller audience than posting on Twitter. Higher effort and less exposure; for not licking Musk’s boots. And because of network effect, non-Twitter methods have lost ground to an unequitable elitist platform that exludes people without mobile phone numbers as well as those wise enough not to share their number with Twitter, and those who object to feeding a right-wind ad surveillance platform. The open letter audience someone would have in a free world is dimished because the audience has their eyes glued to Twitter, who poached them by exploiting network effect.
Why are you talking about a universal right to access Twitter? AFAIK, no one here endorses that.
b/c it’s a private company that excludes people (e.g. people without mobile phones).
Poor comparison on my part. But it seems your sense of what is a right or not depends on whether it is accessible for all (which Lemmy/Mastodon/Bluesky isn’t either as like you mentioned not everyone might have a phone or computer), whereas I argue that this only matters if it is the sole means of communication used by said politician.
I’ve had a twitter account for years with little more than an email address, so not sure if this is a country-specific barrier or my account was grandfathered in. I only use it to lurk as the platform is still useful to obtain information related to my job, but never tweeted.
Either you lick Musk’s boots or you bounce. Those are your choices. Politicians who lick Musk’s boots and drive exclusion cannot effectively represent the people.
If these politicians have been voted in by the people then I see no problem here democratically. The people presumably will find out in time who they really voted for and hopefully learn from it.
Those are different times. We are in Twitter times.
I’d argue that because every tweet is just another voice in the void and there is little filtering of opinions, Twitter is likely less effective than shouting on a street corner for the everyday man to get his opinion across. The sheer prevalence of bots distorts this even more. Also if platform size is the criterium here then Lemmy and Mastodon are still terrible substitutes to Reddit or Twitter in terms of reach.
Also if platform size is the criterium here then Lemmy and Mastodon are still terrible substitutes to Reddit or Twitter in terms of reach.
That’s currently true, but it would still behoove them to have it from a public accessibility and national security perspective, and there is nothing stopping them from cross posting on Twitter until it becomes irrelevant (or Musk kicks them off).
There are moral problems with crossposting to Twitter.
Twitter is financed by advertising. I do not finance public services to then finance the advertising revenue of private corporations. Politician’s IT staff, time, and resources used to feed Twitter are not free. Public money is used for the tooling and the operations on that platform of inequality. So people who are excluded from Twitter are financing content fed to Twitter involuntarily via taxation. And those who are priviledged to be on the Twitter platform are hit with ads as a precondition to reaching content they already paid taxes for – due to an inappropriate intermingling of public and private sectors.
Network effect: making Twitter a superset of content exacerbates the stranglehold Twitter has on the world. The private sector will do its thing, but the public sector has a duty to work in the public interest. A public office adding to Twitter’s network effect disservices the public interest.
Twitter is a politically manipulated venue with a bias toward right-wing populism. People who vote for a green party or socialist party politician do not endorse feeding an extreme right-wing US agenda with worldwide consequences. They do not have an equal voice on that platform which is wired for right-wing propaganda.
Recall how Trump took power in 2016: Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. FB and Twitter are pawned by right-wing extremists.
I absolutely agree, and the most I get from Twitter is from other people posting about it elsewhere. But there is a need for politicians to reach their constituents, and if they can be effectively reached by an imperfect method, then I can accept them using it while also promoting better methods.
But there is a need for politicians to reach their constituents, and if they can be effectively reached by an imperfect method,
Leaders should lead, not follow. Politicians can reach and be reached on a Mastodon server, where all their constituents have access.
Asking ~8 billion (or however many) people to make a personal change first is a non-starter. Demanding many orders of magnitude fewer people (politicians) make the first move to break the dystopian cycle is far more sensible.
then I can accept them using it while also promoting better methods.
Posting on Twitter is an assault on promoting better methods. Mirroring everything on Twitter facilitates the Tyranny of Convenience (great essay by Tim Wu) by making Twitter the superset. It’s important and socially responsible to withhold info from Twitter so that it cannot be the superset.
RMS gives good advice for orgs who think they need a Facebook presence:
Politicians don’t need a Twitter presence, but to the extent that they are not convinced, the bare minimum action they can take is implement some of the advice on that RMS page.
Any random 3rd party joe shmoe can make a Twitter bot that mirrors a politician’s msgs to Twitter. In fact, force Twitter to do the work simply by not feeding Twitter. Motivation for Twitter’s self-preservation would appropriately ensure gov resources are not spent on Twitter. Make Twitter be the host of dodgy mirror bots without engagement, where you need Mastodon to actually engage with a politician.
Nothing you said there actually disagrees with what I said, with the exception of abandoning Twitter completely, which I’m okay with in principle. The issue is that Twitter is currently an effective method to reach some subset of their constituents, regardless of how misguided they may be. Giving an alternative is also a bonus.
Face it, the number of people who know Mastodon exists is a fraction of Twitter users. Do you think it’s politicians’ job to provide technology education?
Do you think it’s politicians’ job to provide technology education?
Of course. Public education comes from the public sector. We should be electing politicians with administrations who are smarter than the general public. Any tech education that comes of Twitter abandonment is welcome.
I have a right to use twitter to the same extent as you have a right to use lemmy. Others not having a phone/computer should not infringe on my right to use existing technology, services or software.
The right to choose to use twitter is markedly different from making it a universal right to be able to access twitter.
Public protest existed for centuries prior to Twitter, and it’s not as if the only choices are Twitter or private letter. There are many other channels of communication around, some of which public.
Not in the slightest. Twitter is like a private road controlled by a single gatekeeping corporation whose private property rights are the only rights to speak of – and it’s run by a right-wing populist who controls who can participate. Lemmy is like a network of public roads without centralized ownership, where the concept of rights is not even needed because there is no central corporate control.
Why are you talking about a universal right to access Twitter? AFAIK, no one here endorses that.
Either you lick Musk’s boots or you bounce. Those are your choices. Politicians who lick Musk’s boots and drive exclusion cannot effectively represent the people.
Those are different times. We are in Twitter times. Shouting on a street corner brings a smaller audience than posting on Twitter. Higher effort and less exposure; for not licking Musk’s boots. And because of network effect, non-Twitter methods have lost ground to an unequitable elitist platform that exludes people without mobile phone numbers as well as those wise enough not to share their number with Twitter, and those who object to feeding a right-wind ad surveillance platform. The open letter audience someone would have in a free world is dimished because the audience has their eyes glued to Twitter, who poached them by exploiting network effect.
Poor comparison on my part. But it seems your sense of what is a right or not depends on whether it is accessible for all (which Lemmy/Mastodon/Bluesky isn’t either as like you mentioned not everyone might have a phone or computer), whereas I argue that this only matters if it is the sole means of communication used by said politician.
I’ve had a twitter account for years with little more than an email address, so not sure if this is a country-specific barrier or my account was grandfathered in. I only use it to lurk as the platform is still useful to obtain information related to my job, but never tweeted.
If these politicians have been voted in by the people then I see no problem here democratically. The people presumably will find out in time who they really voted for and hopefully learn from it.
I’d argue that because every tweet is just another voice in the void and there is little filtering of opinions, Twitter is likely less effective than shouting on a street corner for the everyday man to get his opinion across. The sheer prevalence of bots distorts this even more. Also if platform size is the criterium here then Lemmy and Mastodon are still terrible substitutes to Reddit or Twitter in terms of reach.
That’s currently true, but it would still behoove them to have it from a public accessibility and national security perspective, and there is nothing stopping them from cross posting on Twitter until it becomes irrelevant (or Musk kicks them off).
There are moral problems with crossposting to Twitter.
Twitter is financed by advertising. I do not finance public services to then finance the advertising revenue of private corporations. Politician’s IT staff, time, and resources used to feed Twitter are not free. Public money is used for the tooling and the operations on that platform of inequality. So people who are excluded from Twitter are financing content fed to Twitter involuntarily via taxation. And those who are priviledged to be on the Twitter platform are hit with ads as a precondition to reaching content they already paid taxes for – due to an inappropriate intermingling of public and private sectors.
Network effect: making Twitter a superset of content exacerbates the stranglehold Twitter has on the world. The private sector will do its thing, but the public sector has a duty to work in the public interest. A public office adding to Twitter’s network effect disservices the public interest.
Twitter is a politically manipulated venue with a bias toward right-wing populism. People who vote for a green party or socialist party politician do not endorse feeding an extreme right-wing US agenda with worldwide consequences. They do not have an equal voice on that platform which is wired for right-wing propaganda.
Recall how Trump took power in 2016: Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. FB and Twitter are pawned by right-wing extremists.
I absolutely agree, and the most I get from Twitter is from other people posting about it elsewhere. But there is a need for politicians to reach their constituents, and if they can be effectively reached by an imperfect method, then I can accept them using it while also promoting better methods.
Leaders should lead, not follow. Politicians can reach and be reached on a Mastodon server, where all their constituents have access.
Asking ~8 billion (or however many) people to make a personal change first is a non-starter. Demanding many orders of magnitude fewer people (politicians) make the first move to break the dystopian cycle is far more sensible.
Posting on Twitter is an assault on promoting better methods. Mirroring everything on Twitter facilitates the Tyranny of Convenience (great essay by Tim Wu) by making Twitter the superset. It’s important and socially responsible to withhold info from Twitter so that it cannot be the superset.
RMS gives good advice for orgs who think they need a Facebook presence:
https://stallman.org/facebook-presence.html
Politicians don’t need a Twitter presence, but to the extent that they are not convinced, the bare minimum action they can take is implement some of the advice on that RMS page.
Any random 3rd party joe shmoe can make a Twitter bot that mirrors a politician’s msgs to Twitter. In fact, force Twitter to do the work simply by not feeding Twitter. Motivation for Twitter’s self-preservation would appropriately ensure gov resources are not spent on Twitter. Make Twitter be the host of dodgy mirror bots without engagement, where you need Mastodon to actually engage with a politician.
Nothing you said there actually disagrees with what I said, with the exception of abandoning Twitter completely, which I’m okay with in principle. The issue is that Twitter is currently an effective method to reach some subset of their constituents, regardless of how misguided they may be. Giving an alternative is also a bonus.
Face it, the number of people who know Mastodon exists is a fraction of Twitter users. Do you think it’s politicians’ job to provide technology education?
Of course. Public education comes from the public sector. We should be electing politicians with administrations who are smarter than the general public. Any tech education that comes of Twitter abandonment is welcome.
deleted by creator