
Officials Don't Get to Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment, and Reply to Tweets - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/when-officials-tweet-about-government-business-they-dont-get-pick-and-choose-who
======
rayiner
This is a really excellent analysis. The question isn’t whether Twitter in
general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. It’s whether government
officials, by creating a Twitter account, have in effect created a public
forum. Having done so, they can’t restrict speech on it. This isn’t a far out
argument, though it might seem like one. Public forum doctrine is well
established.

To use a meat-space analogy. Say the government set up booths in a mall for
public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people
who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not. While there is
generally no free speech right in a private venue like a mall, where the
government creates in effect a public forum on private property, it has to
abide by the First Amendment.

Were the law otherwise, government officials could insulate themselves from
criticism simply by making speeches in hotel ballrooms and the like. That is,
in effect, what Trump is trying to do with his Twitter feed.

~~~
ams6110
_Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make
speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion
signs to such a speech? Probably not._

Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the
official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private
property.

FTA: _The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio,
print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue_

I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's
not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of
government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable
users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.

Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms
(e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't
see Twitter as being much different.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> it's not the public square_

Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.

It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either
way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the
gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.

This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the
government's right to use those features.

 _> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms
(e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't
see Twitter as being much different._

There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning
activities.

So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the
accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.

~~~
rayiner
> This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the
> government's right to use those features.

This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public
official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.

~~~
kencausey
What if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed
that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without
any communication with the official would that be a violation?

~~~
kthejoker2
It primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the
mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First
Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself.

Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall
wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.

------
pitaa
This is an interesting issue. One thing they don’t mention is trolls. In a
physical public forum such as a town hall meeting, if some crazy gets up and
starts uttering threats or stripping their clothes off, they’re going to be
escorted out. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider this a violation of that
person’s right to free speech just because the cops showed up before they
finished threatening every person they disagreed with.

Now consider twitter. If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics, is
blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from
the room? (This is not considering any action the secret service may take
regarding threats)

Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were
necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in
general.

~~~
rayiner
The difference is that there is no physical risk on Twitter, unlike in a
public space.

~~~
Sevii
People have gone to jail for tweets that were deemed criminal violence.

~~~
rayiner
Which is nuts.

~~~
colejohnson66
Is it though? Are you suggesting that me saying “I’m gonna kill you” here on
Hacker News shouldn’t be treated as a threat simply because it’s not a
physical interaction, but a digital one?

~~~
rayiner
Yes, interactions that happen in close physical proximity should be treated
differently than interactions separated by digital distances.

------
DoubleGlazing
I think the EFF are clutching at straws a bit. Blocking someone from
contracting you on social media isn't really a freedom of speech issue - so
long as an alternatives means exists. Though restricting them from reading
your content if those posts are in an official capacity is very questionable.
More so considering how much official communication is moving online.

For example Twitter now seems to have become a default channel of sorts for
announcing power outages and for urgent press releases from government
agencies. Is it right that someone misses out on updates because they were
blocked?

Maybe what is needed is for twitter/facebook etc to have a special kind of
"read only" blocking for government and public official accounts?

~~~
ams6110
I have no expectation that any form of communication I make will be listened
to. I can call my senator or Donald Trump on the phone but it's very unlikely
I will actually be able to talk to them. I can send my senator or Donald Trump
a letter but it's unlikely it will actually be read by them. There are many
filters in place. Twitter blocks are just another filter on a specific
communications medium.

~~~
icebraining
Muting is a filter. Blocking imposes restrictions on the actual speech, and on
the reception of Tweets.

------
twoodfin
This is an interesting argument. I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of
Agriculture can't apply viewpoint-based discrimination on whom they choose to
block from their Twitter feed.

It's much less clear to me that this restriction should apply to every
government official using Twitter in the same manner as a private citizen
might. What's the limiting principle? The First Amendment applies just as much
at your local school board meeting as it does at a White House press
conference; does that mean each of those elected officials must treat their
social media accounts as public forums if they ever choose to use them to chat
about official business as @realdonaldtrump does?

~~~
pitaa
> I'm persuaded that, say, the Department of Agriculture can't apply
> viewpoint-based discrimination

I agree. But how far does that go? Lets say there's a small town somewhere
that hosts a monthly community BBQ/potluck during the summer. They post photos
to the town facebook page, and PETA shows up and starts spamming the comments
with "meat is murder" and the like. Can the town block PETA?

~~~
throwawayjava
This is an issue already dealt with at length in existing case law, and is
largely unrelated to the case at hand because @realdonaldtrump is not a place
for announcing community events or road closures, and the censorship applied
there is not viewpoint-neutral.

Relevant quote from the article: _The president has admitted in the lawsuit
that he blocked them because he objected to the viewpoints they expressed in
replying to his tweets or in their own tweets._

The reason EFF describes that as an "admission", is because it makes the
question you raise irrelevant.

------
LeoJiWoo
Twitter and social media don't want that door opened. It will almost certainly
subject them to strong regulations.

I guarantee conservative/maga types like Roger Stone who have been banned from
Twitter will sue, since they would have a right to comment on Official Tweets.

The crux of their argument is twitter is a public square, which it is not.
Twitter is a private platform selective in what users it allows to
participate, which is their right as a private company.

I personally find this article distasteful, as Net Neutrality is about to be
lost, and the EFF is publishing stuff about Tweets.

Its time like these, where I'm convinced the EFF needs to be replaced by a
more aggressive Organization dedicated to protecting our civil liberties from
things like PRISM and protecting Net Neutrality.

What the point in a worthless battle/distraction(Trump can just drop twitter),
when we are in the middle of a larger war (NN) ?

~~~
lambda
The first amendment applies to the actions of govnerment officials, not
private parties.

In the meat-space analogy, the mall is still able to kick out people for
violating its rules on conduct, but government officials are not allowed to,
nor are they allowed to ask the mall to kick people out on their behalf.

> Trump can just drop twitter

Can he, really? It is his favorite medium, the one that allows him direct
access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to state his mind
publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media organizations, and the
like.

~~~
icebraining
In what way would a private site (say, a self-hosted GNU Social instance) not
allow Trump direct access to a large base of devoted fans, and allows him to
state his mind publicly in a way that is not filtered by aids, media
organizations, and the like?

------
dilap
It's an interesting argument, but in practical terms, _who cares_ if the
government can't censor your tweets when Twitter itself -- an arbitrary, non-
transparent entity, with zero representation for users -- can censor your
tweets?

It could be a nice first-step to more fair social media, though.

(People are arguing that twitter is not a public forum, it's just a private
service, &c. Sure, maybe in origin, but practically speaking, twitter is
probably the most important public forum there is right now. Being barred from
twitter is a huge loss of ability to participate in civic life.)

------
H99189
I think the EFF is dead wrong here, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a public
official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously enjoyed
in their private lives?

Maybe once you become an elected official, you can no longer chase people off
your front lawn. They have a right to speak so maybe that's more important
than your private property rights. Maybe they can demand you charge their
iphones while they're protesting on your street corner? The government is
paying for their salary anyway, shouldn't a protested politician be required
to support the protestors in the name of free speech? How far does this go?

~~~
danso
> _Aside from the trappings of fame itself, is there any precedent where a
> public official has been restricted from certain rights that they previously
> enjoyed in their private lives?_

In many jurisdictions, the emails and texts and other communiques you make in
the course of your job or subject to public records request. That's not the
case if you have a private job.

------
sverige
Here's where I part ways with the EFF's analysis: The article says, "the First
Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to speak your mind. _It also
protects your right to receive, read, hear, see, and obtain information and
ideas._ " (Italics added.)

The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances."

I understand that there are literally dozens of bound volumes of case analysis
that apply to the interpretation of this amendment by dozens of courts great
and small, but I don't think any of them have gone so far as to say that I
have a constitutional right to receive information in a certain medium. If a
tweet is that important, some newspaper will reprint it.

~~~
nv-vn
This is true, but I think even more importantly, these actions go 100% against
the spirit of the law. This article is basically arguing that the private
sector can provide a public platform, which basically means that the actions
of the private sector can be coerced to give a "right to receive." By this
logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see government
communications because now these forms of communication are a guaranteed
right. It also restricts the right of the media or Twitter to remove Trump if
they so wish to.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> which basically means that the actions of the private sector can be coerced
to give a "right to receive."_

No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.

What _does_ follow is that, if the forum the gov't is using does not protect
this right to receive, then _the gov 't_ can be forced to use a different
forum.

Which is how it should be. Malls shouldn't be allowed to shut down public
debate on local tax policy just because the city council chooses to hold their
public meetings in the food court.

Of course, the mall is free to perform that censorship. But then the council
needs to find a different place to meet.

 _> By this logic, cable providers and ISPs can't charge you money to see
government communications because now these forms of communication are a
guaranteed right_

Those "volumes of case law" already deal with this question in a multitude of
ways.

~~~
nv-vn
> No, that does not follow from the article's analysis.

Because the article is very clearly biased. Making it a legal requirement for
tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter
cannot shut people up (or else they have broken it as a platform for free
speech).

> But then the council needs to find a different place to meet.

The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is
shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government. As a better
example, I would say you have a private establishment like a hotel where the
meeting is happening. You have a conference room reserved and the public is
welcome to come in to observe. If it is illegal for the council to eject a
Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel
to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not
allowed). In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel
would have to change their policy. So in this way, the hotel is threatened
with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all
speech. The issue here, is that the EFF is asserting that if the President
chooses to talk to someone in the hotel lobby (somewhere that anyone can
listen, but not somewhere that is meant to be official government
communications), then that has suddenly become protected.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are
protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up_

This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as
a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of _THIS_ lawsuit
would be an injunction against Twitter.

So unless you have a very compelling legal argument...

 _> The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is
shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government_

Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is _even stronger_. It's not
just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the
mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an
even more obvious restriction on speech...

 _> If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their
views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the
hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed)._

Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for
the city council to host their meeting in that hotel.

 _> In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would
have to change their policy._

Yes.

 _> So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they
do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech._

And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from
hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make
two different restrictions on speech?

More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely
unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just
insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.

------
nv-vn
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't get how somebody can argue for this as a first amendment right. The
first amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that you can say
anything you want anywhere you want (keyword: anywhere). The Supreme Court has
ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are constitutional. For
example, the government can restrict you from standing at the door of an
abortion clinic and protesting, but cannot prevent you from protesting
abortions publicly. This case seems like a pretty clear-cut example: you are
not being censored by saying that you cannot tweet directly to President
Trump, as long as you still have the right to publicly state your views. The
fact that the speech doesn't make it to the ears of the President has never
been a concern with free speech. The goal is to allow people to assemble and
share their views with those who wish to listen. If Trump wears noise-
cancelling headphones while passing by a protest, is he infringing upon your
right to free speech? The thing here is that the tweets still do get sent out,
and it's not like you're shadow-banned. The President has opted-out of viewing
your tweets, just like how wearing noise-cancelling headphones is opting out
of hearing your speech.

More importantly, it is still important to note that they have not stopped
your ability to actually speak to the President. You can send a letter in the
mail or protest in front of the White House if you so wish to. It also creates
a sticky situation when you think of the consequences of Twitter banning a
user. If Twitter is to be considered a protected "free speech zone," the
company loses the right to ban users.

Fundamentally, this situation is nothing like what the first amendment has
ever been applied to. It's not even really a debate on freedom of speech, but
rather a right to audience. Is it within your constitutionally-protected right
to have an audience? Based on what the Bill of Rights represents, I would
argue that any such restriction is against the spirit of the document. The
point of the document is to protect the individual from the government, not
coerce the government or individuals into action -- if this becomes a
protected mode of free speech, Twitter is coerced into allowing all messages
to be published to anyone.

~~~
URSpider94
The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum, not just your own
tweets but also re-tweets and replies. By declaring his Twitter account to be
part of the public record, Trump has forfeited the right to exclude people
from that forum (specifically, the reply feed to his tweets) by blocking them.

Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument. If you are
generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you can’t regulate
that speech based on content, beyond policing for obscenity and threats
(though even that would be at issue in this case, since the President himself
has used these forms of speech).

~~~
nv-vn
>The key to the argument is that Twitter is a public forum

The issue with that logic is that Twitter is still a private entity, and
declaring them to be the facilitators of a public forum coerces them into
certain actions (censoring anything would be illegal).

>By declaring his Twitter account to be part of the public record, Trump has
forfeited the right to exclude people from that forum (specifically, the reply
feed to his tweets) by blocking them.

When did he declare that? As far as I know, the only people who have said that
are staunchly anti-Trump.

>Saying that you have other places to speak is a specious argument.

I get what you are saying, but the Supreme Court has ruled that this is enough
to be considered free speech in the past.

>If you are generally providing an open microphone for public speech, you
can’t regulate that speech based on content

Who is "you"? This applies to the government, but a private organization need
not follow these laws. And at what point has Twitter declared itself to be an
open microphone to free speech? I guess you mean that this applies to Trump's
Twitter account, but I don't think it has ever been meant to be an open
microphone. That is like saying that if Trump were to publish his phone number
online it would instantly imply that he's using it to receive public opinions
on politics. His Twitter account has existed since long before he became
President, so in my opinion it's disingenuous to say that it should be an
"open microphone," because do we really expect him to stop using his
Twitter/Facebook/whatever accounts just because he's a politician?

~~~
URSpider94
Commenting on my phone so it’s hard to do in-line:

1\. Sean Spicer is among the government officials who said that Trump’s tweets
represent official statements.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/poli...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/politics/trump-
tweets-official-statements/index.html)

2\. Nobody is trying to compel Twitter to do anything here. They are not a
party to the suit. The onus is on Trump to act according to the relevant law
by not blocking people; or by not posting on Twitter if he can’t abide by the
rules imposed by the law.

3\. Sorry for the ambiguous pronoun. Twitter creates the rules for their
platform, Trump decides to participate there. By doing so, he is explicitly
choosing to participate in a forum discussion, which carries certain
consequences (as TFA mentions). If he did not want to let people speak in
rebuttal, he could write a blog with comments turned off, or broadcast a
weekly radio address. What he can’t do, as a government official, is
participate in a public forum in an official capacity, and then silence or
demote dissenting speech.

------
coding123
Someone blocked by president trump can still read his tweets because Twitter
does not prevent you from having multiple accounts. On the notion of free
speech, twitter does not block users from tweeting stances in their own feeds.

To allow this should mean EFF should also require fox news to provide a 1 hour
block at midnight that allows 1 minute video segments from angry people that
want to shout at the president. It's not going to happen.

The first amendment was about making it legal to shout from the rooftops, but
not a requirement that all mediums re-shout it for you.

If you want to start a newspaper in the US, no one is stopping you.

~~~
Jeff_Brown
If someone blocks you on Twitter, can you still refer to their account using
their handle, and their tweets using the URL? If not, then that is an
infringement of speech. We should be able to refer to the president's remarks,
for instance; otherwise we are hindered from processing that information.

~~~
coding123
Even if Twitter had some capability to block WhitePower.com or BlackPower.com
from showing Tweets, referring to a instance of a communication can always be
done the old fashioned way:

Example: This week the New York Times interviewed the president who said "I
love people."

No more issues - everyone is allowed to share, read, and post their own views
on the mediums that will allow, and are capable of creating their own medium
in the US.

------
ourmandave

      Does this mean I can't block anyone?
    

_A non-governmental actor can block anyone they want without violating the
First Amendment. The First Amendment only restricts the government’s ability
to limit speech in this context._

There were 65.8M votes for Hillary. They're gonna need _a lot_ of WH interns
to set up that many blocks.

~~~
lawl
> _They 're gonna need a lot of WH interns to set up that many blocks._

* An AI that checks if you are politically aligned with the current government, or a trouble maker.

------
kelukelugames
Another argument for Twitter becoming a public good! Maybe then I can finally
sell my shares for a profit.

------
macspoofing
If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts?
Also, can officials have private accounts? In the case of Trump, maybe he
isn't allowed to ban people from the @POTUS account but is allowed to ban them
from his private @realDonaldTrump account.

~~~
icebraining
_If Twitter is a public forum then should they be allow to even ban accounts?_

I don't think the statement is "Twitter is a public forum" but "the Twitter
accounts of government officials using in their official capacity make those
accounts public forums in the context of the First Amendment restrictions on
governmental intervention".

So I don't think this has anything to do with what Twitter can or cannot do.

 _Also, can officials have private accounts?_

IANAL: probably, but only as long as they don't use it in their capacity as
officials. Which Trump does with @realDonaldTrump.

------
SomeStupidPoint
> We frequently receive reports from community activists and other social
> media users who were blocked from commenting on an agency’s Facebook page,
> or prevented from contributing to a community discussion prompted by an
> officials’ tweet, or have faced similar barriers to participation in public
> debate. We receive reports about how governmental officials manipulate
> social media comments to exclude opposing views to create the impression
> that hotly contested policies are not contested at all. And we realize, in
> seeing how agencies use social media to quickly disseminate emergency
> information during the recent spate of natural disasters, that the ability
> to receive such messages can be a matter of life and death.

This is really the crux of why it's a First Amendment issue -- because that
amendment is meant to protect discussion from that sort of manipulation by
government.

------
dennyabraham
In the full title, the antecedent for "them" is "Tweets"

~~~
DiabloD3
I had to butcher the title to fit, HN mods are welcome to unbutcher it. I
really hate having to do that, but EFF tends to have overly verbose headlines.

~~~
sctb
OK, we've butchered it differently and updated it from “Officials Don't Get to
Choose Who Gets to Receive, Comment On, and Reply to Them”.

~~~
krapp
Nobody would have to butcher anything if you removed the character limit on
titles, or at least increased it to a more reasonable default. I doubt even
many HN users are browsing from an 80 column terminal, so the restriction
seems not to serve much purpose.

You could also cut the titles off at the nearest word add an ellipsis and a
tooltip so people could read the entire thing without sacrificing canvas space
- which might also improve accessibility.

Each would seem to be a better option than constantly trying to make titles
fit into an arbitrarily restrictive space.

------
firstplacelast
How is this different than real life?

------
zerostar07
But if US citizens are allowed to block president's twitter, then there is an
impasse of communication. So US citizens should not be allowed to block the
president either.

~~~
smichel17
I don't understand this argument. This seems like the equivalent of not
attending said public forum. I'm not aware of any law against that, although I
personally think it is a bad idea.

~~~
zerostar07
what's the point of forcing the president to accept a grievance if it's not
possible for him to respond?

~~~
throwawayjava
By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a
single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend.

That's clearly an absurd position.

~~~
zerostar07
no the analogy would be that if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged
to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the
request or wear earplugs. i am trying to follow the argument eff is making
here and i also see that it leads to absurd conclusions

but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck

~~~
throwawayjava
_> if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the
citizen should not run away right after making the request_

Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block
Trump.

 _> but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck _

It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a
multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness.

The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the
first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.

------
mc32
This is interesting.

Why would Hillary blocking RogerStone be against free speech when he can still
use the platform to tweet. The first amendment does not mean someone has to
listen to you. You just have to have the ability to disseminate ideas.

On the other hand, twitter suspending Hillary or Roger Stone, even being a
private company, is more a direct threat to speech, given the stranglehold
Goog-Twitt-Book have on communication.

It seems to me EFF have things a bit backwards here.

~~~
icebraining
Being a "threat to speech" is irrelevant - what matters is the law,
specifically the First Amendment, and that imposes restrictions on government
and its officials that it doesn't on private individuals and companies.

As for Hillary, the point is that RogerStone can no longer receive _her_
messages (and directly comment them) and tag her on his Tweets to others. If
she doesn't want to listen to him, she still can mute him, but blocking
imposes restrictions on his speech.

~~~
mc32
What happens when those companies become an oligopoly or monopoly on speech?

What if the gov't uses twitter as it's only diffusion platform and what if
them Twitter suspends say US EPA or Education twitter handles because they
violate "ToS"? Since people can't in that case comms with gov't orgs, does
that encumber free speech?

~~~
icebraining
Does that encumber free speech? Maybe. Is it illegal? I don't think so.

If the government can't communicate because it only uses Twitter, then I think
the answer is "don't do that". The government can always use its own means of
communication.

~~~
mc32
Certainly they could revert to phone and snail mail, which was the prev status
quo. However, that would be to the detriment of the people.

~~~
icebraining
Or they can host their own sites...

~~~
mc32
They could also roll their own "Twitter" like microblogging service...

But I don't think we'd consider that a solution.

~~~
krapp
Actually... that sounds like a good idea to me.

Except for the part where no one would pay attention to it because it's
Twitter, and the part where the government controls the platform, making
internal surveillance and censorship inevitable. It would probably just wind
up a PR machine for the party in power.

But government employees, from the President all the way down to, say, interns
having an official and direct means of communication with the people, on
public record? I'm all for it.

