Blocked on Twitter

[*bfine32*]

Seems I remember this being a discussion on the forum a while back but I couldn't find the thread. My stance is AOC can block whomever she wants on twitter. Pretty sure I had the same stance on Trump; at least I hope I did:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aoc-sued-court-rules-trump-201242374.html

Quote:After a federal court ruled Donald Trump could not constitutionally block people on Twitter, Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was threatened with a lawsuit for allegedly doing the same.

The court found Mr Trump’s blocking infringed on first amendment rights to free speech and that people had a right to see his posts, reply to his tweets, and send him messages.

[GMDino]

(07-09-2019, 09:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems I remember this being a discussion on the forum a while back but I couldn't find the thread. My stance is AOC can block whomever she wants on twitter. Pretty sure I had the same stance on Trump; at least I hope I did:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aoc-sued-court-rules-trump-201242374.html

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Donald-Trump-cannot-block-critical-Twitter-users-court-rules?highlight=trump+tweets

(05-23-2018, 06:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I agree wit this ruling especially the Judge's rationale that Trump just can ignore the tweets. If someone is harassing you via social media you should absolutely be able to block them. 

Now I'd have 0 problem with and absolutely support a ruling that said he cannot discuss Federal Policy on his personal account.

[*bfine32*]

(07-09-2019, 09:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Donald-Trump-cannot-block-critical-Twitter-users-court-rules?highlight=trump+tweets

Thanks. My stance is the same. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Found the following comment on YouTube in a The Thinkery video very interesting;


USMCArchAngel03
1 hour ago
Not only that, by banning you Twitter itself is also keeping you from speaking to Trump.

Interesting take.


Here's the link to the video in question;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuRpJKe2_P0


Before some of the same people bring it up, yes Karl Benjamin is controversial. I've listened to his takes on many topics, he's usually rather measured. Don't agree with him on everything (a shocking concept for some I know). Nevertheless I'm prepared for the usual mudslinging from the same people. Have at it and ignore the point being made.

[BmorePat87]

Our governor was sued for blocking users (my father included lol) and had to create a separate government account where he couldn't block users. The idea is that a public page for a government official acts as a sort of modern day town square. Users comments can only be limited if they violate the TOS of the platform.

I like a rule that says government officials public pages for their office have to completely open, but any public page for their person does not. So @TheRealDonaldTrump is a personal page but @POTUS is a public page.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 12:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our governor was sued for blocking users (my father included lol) and had to create a separate government account where he couldn't block users. The idea is that a public page for a government official acts as a sort of modern day town square. Users comments can only be limited if they violate the TOS of the platform.

I like a rule that says government officials public pages for their office have to completely open, but any public page for their person does not. So @TheRealDonaldTrump is a personal page but @POTUS is a public page.

But as we said in the other thread DJT doesn't just post to the official page.  In fact the official page is usually more retweets of HIS page. So since he won't give up his unsecured phone and continues to use his personal page for business it would fall under this ruling.

The other thing is he can set it so he doesn't see any responses.  Now we all know he pours through them looking for praise so he might not want to do that, but he can also set it to only see responses from the people he follows.  

Point being that Trump isn't smart enough to protect his thin skin from people who might (gasp) disagree with him let alone the actual trolls.

[treee]

Short form social media is for the birds.

[Au165]

She shouldn't block them just like Trump shouldn't. Bot should simply can mute them so they don't have to read their (Citizens) tweets to them but the citizen can still see the officials tweets.

[BmorePat87]

(07-10-2019, 09:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: But as we said in the other thread DJT doesn't just post to the official page.  In fact the official page is usually more retweets of HIS page. So since he won't give up his unsecured phone and continues to use his personal page for business it would fall under this ruling.

The other thing is he can set it so he doesn't see any responses.  Now we all know he pours through them looking for praise so he might not want to do that, but he can also set it to only see responses from the people he follows.  

Point being that Trump isn't smart enough to protect his thin skin from people who might (gasp) disagree with him let alone the actual trolls.

I understand that argument, but as long as the government page exists, you can still redress grievances. 

I'm not entitled to access to his private telephone number, but the white house has a publicly listed line I can call and ***** to. Same with my senators or reps. 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 03:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand that argument, but as long as the government page exists, you can still redress grievances. 

I'm not entitled to access to his private telephone number, but the white house has a publicly listed line I can call and ***** to. Same with my senators or reps. 

I agree with your example.  And if this were a normal presidency I'd agree 100%.  But if there were no Twitter in your example DJT would be only making and taking calls on his personal line and avoiding the business line.

As long as he uses his personal account primarily to post his "policies" and "ideas" it will fall under the same rules as the public one in my mind.

[CJD]

I personally am not a huge fan of politicians being on twitter at all. Its short form style is not a great way to discuss or announce political policy, but what are you gonna do? The world's a-changin'. Keep up or get left behind, I suppose.

[*bfine32*]

I suppose I don't see the difference between public and private twitter when you are a public servant. Are you not a public servant 24 hours a day?

I don't think anyone should be banned, but there should be a "read only" option.

I say all this admitting my complete ignorance of the media format.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2019, 10:29 AM)treee Wrote: Short form social media is for the birds.

True, but how is the government going to honestly be "representative of the people" if they aren't futzing around on social media and positing nonsensical and ill-informed crap when they should be working?

[BmorePat87]

(07-10-2019, 03:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree with your example.  And if this were a normal presidency I'd agree 100%.  But if there were no Twitter in your example DJT would be only making and taking calls on his personal line and avoiding the business line.

As long as he uses his personal account primarily to post his "policies" and "ideas" it will fall under the same rules as the public one in my mind.

I can argue that his private line is likely the one where he does most of his policy making on, but you're right in pointing out that any example with Trump shreds any normalcy. We likely will not see anything close to this from the next President in terms of what kind of commentary they will give on social media.

All in all, it's just good policy not to block people on social media, no matter the account. I told my friend this when he ran for board of ed and an opponents sisters kept trolling his page. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-10-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose I don't see the difference between public and private twitter when you are a public servant. Are you not a public servant 24 hours a day?

I don't think anyone should be banned, but there should be a "read only" option.

I say all this admitting my complete ignorance of the media format.

Public servants have private lives and any social media account they had prior to serving office (to me) is still a private account in that it represents their person not their office.

Obviously, so much of what politicians do in all aspects of their lives influences their office, so I see the argument on all sides of this issue. 

[6andcounting]

If your don't have to be logged in to see their Tweets how does blocking someone hurt democracy? If someone is giving a speech in a town square and I screech like a re-re after every sentence they speak I'm going to get kicked out. It's your right to spam people Twitter feeds with whatever crap you can come up with, but you don't have the right to force them to get their notifications blown up every time you do it.

[BakertheBeast]

Trump banned me on his Twitter page. All I did was ask him if he had any children that lived.

[GMDino]

Just as an aside to this:

DJT retweets a lot of conspiracy sites.

The Pizzagate account Trump retweeted today has been suspended for violating Twitter’s rules. #VeryFinePeople pic.twitter.com/P9FDpdO2Fy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 30, 2019

 


But in his mind they are legit because they agree with what he thinks.


I understand Twitter saying since he is POTUS his "words" carry a different historical weight than most people on line, but that he does multiple things that break their codes of service and there is zero done about it seems wrong somehow.  What would be wrong if enough people reported a tweet from Trump that called a someone an awful name, or used racist tropes, or was clearly false information and it was deleted?  It happens to others.