|
| ▲ | derbOac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It should be that way. My tolerance for people posting to X without also posting to an open platform is over. Public institutions especially. There's zero excuse, none. |
| |
| ▲ | aaron695 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | zahlman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There's zero excuse, none. How about the general lack of awareness of "open platforms", or of any given one of your objections to X? Most people are not in the HN bubble. | | |
| ▲ | rideontime 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | An open platform could be as simple as hosting their own website. You don’t need to be in a “bubble” to know about websites. | | | |
| ▲ | edoceo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it's not the case currently, it should be, that public institutions MUST make their public statements widely available. The old POSSE way seems correct. Blocked, or EULA'd or Paywalled on third-party platforms doesn't do that. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | culi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Someone could certainly make a case in a lawsuit for an ADA violation. I bet if people organized, the city would listen before it got to that point There are open meeting laws like the Brown Act but I think that only restricts relying on social media for deliberation. Not communication There is also Lindke v. Freed (2024) which holds that public officials using social media can be sued under the First Amendment violations like blocking users or deleting comments. |
|
| ▲ | fearmerchant 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Newspapers are still often required to be used for certain government publications and they cost money. TwitterX is free. I'm not clear what the controversy here is exactly. |
| |
| ▲ | culi an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to make an account to access it. That's not free | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Worse, you can be banned for reasons unrelated to your local laws and lose access. |
| |
| ▲ | etdznots 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is not free? You just pay them with your private information and by looking at a few ads. That is not free. Unless you believe information and time have no value? | | |
| ▲ | alsetmusic 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Newspapers aren't free either. But Twitter, I mean that crappy one-letter site purchased by a chud, is still garbage. I'm definitely not defending it. |
| |
| ▲ | Barrin92 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I'm not clear what the controversy here is exactly. Seems pretty obvious, not every citizen has access to twitter, there's no legitimate chain of trust and there's endless potential for corruption and manipulation. In pretty much every developed country sans the US apparently governments, even local ones, tend to be obligated to publish information through their own channels because 1. they own them so you know communication is authentic, 2. they can't ban or restrict you from accessing it, they know how that information is made available, there's no financial conflict of interest. It's completely possible for Twitter, given that the government has no insight into its technical operations, exert influence on who sees what and how. That alone is insane for public, government communication. If the government isn't sovereign in respect to its communications infrastructure your government is run by tech oligarchs |
|
|
| ▲ | VLM 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No, and this policy goes back to publication in for-profit newspapers. Not an issue in the USA in general. With a disclaimer that there's one zillion governmental entities on the planet overall, so its plausible that one requires no fee and no signup required. |
