World leaders should not have a forum on Twitter. We have official government channels for that, where other stakeholders in the system provide their input before the message becomes public.
If an individual moves into the position of a world leader or equivalent, their account should be frozen until such time that the position ends. This is the only sane policy. Anything else is too dangerous for humanity. Twitter and similar forums have the potential to destabilize global peace in the long run.
Ex: A world leader should not be allowed to say "We are going to war" on Twitter, only to have the military turn around and say "We're doing what?!". Most governments have an official process for declaring war for this very reason, otherwise we are regressing back to medieval times.
Whether a world leader can announce a war without consulting with the military first has nothing to do with Twitter. In the past (and present), they can still do that just as easily over live radio, live TV, or announced to journalists as breaking news.
It's up to a country to determine the official processes by which a leader can speak to any media outlet.
For most leaders, they use Twitter responsibly and blandly, not very different from other channels, and honestly their staffers manage it for them. If a leader is irresponsible, then it's up to the legislature to take action.
It sounds like you're proposing something where some politicians can participate in discourse on Twitter but not their slightly more successful rivals?
A line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it could become a prestige thing to be too big for Twitter. (Also, in practice, their press secretary would be on Twitter and say things for them.)
I think I disagree there. Though there are negative effects, one positive effect is that Twitter creates an opportunity for direct public feedback being seen by world leaders vs official channels that insulate from that feedback to a much higher degree. Though I do say "opportunity" because obviously leaders can create organizational insulators to Twitter accounts just as with any other channel.
Not all opportunities are exercised - but especially on HN I would think we should realize that it's significant that they exist.
But your comment also brings up a possible secondary benefit: the benefit of the people to see and possibly get in contact with other real people (real for the most part hopefully), as they criticize world figures. This is something that doesn't exist in other media outlets or exists only for people who can afford to take time out to go to a protest or in person official function.
No idea what that first paragraph is trying to say.
And people can contact other people and criticize world leaders whether or not those leaders spend countless hours a day tweeting.
Twitter is quite possibly one of the worst places for that anyways for multiple reasons (established fake account infrastructure distorting conversations, poor layout for async discussion between many people, etc)
I was trying to say that just because one individual leader did not avail himself of the opportunity, doesn't mean that having that opportunity exist isn't valuable overall.
People can contact each other but having the leader somewhere available provides a focal point that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Twitter has problems - but it's not clear to me how a lot of the problem unique problems of twitter vs common problems of meeting and filtering out any anonymous mass of people at a party or conference.
> I was trying to say that just because one individual leader did not avail himself of the opportunity, doesn't mean that having that opportunity exist isn't valuable overall.
Then say that? Because this:
> Not all opportunities are exercised - but especially on HN I would think we should realize that it's significant that they exist.
Sure doesn't mean that.
> People can contact each other but having the leader somewhere available provides a focal point that otherwise wouldn't exist.
What? No. The focal point is the person and their actions.
Donald Trump was also one of the most contentious topics on every other form of social media that doesn't have him posting. Just look at Reddit.
> Twitter has problems - but it's not clear to me how a lot of the problem unique problems of twitter vs common problems of meeting and filtering out any anonymous mass of people at a party or conference.
Then read my comment again.
All platforms have problems, Twitter is just even worse than par, and the format is especially bad.
I can't believe we're actually going to pretend the platform that started by limiting people to discourse based on 140 characters supposed to be some sort of rallying point against bad leaders rather than an echo chamber where everyone talks past everyone except those who agree with their views.
-
Leaders should use their official platforms that aren't subject to the whims of a private company. If news companies or individuals or even the platforms themselves want to drop those official statements into their ecosystem that's on them.
It's one thing if a country just can't put together that infrastructure but the spark for this is literally the only country in the world with a tld for their government (.gov) there is no reason it should have ever come to this.
So given the problem of a megaomaniac world leader who wants to unilaterally start a global thermonuclear war... the solution is to have Twitter freeze their accounts? And we're all good to go, no other issues? That's the actual solution that you came up with and think "yep, solved it!"?
If an individual moves into the position of a world leader or equivalent, their account should be frozen until such time that the position ends. This is the only sane policy. Anything else is too dangerous for humanity. Twitter and similar forums have the potential to destabilize global peace in the long run.
Ex: A world leader should not be allowed to say "We are going to war" on Twitter, only to have the military turn around and say "We're doing what?!". Most governments have an official process for declaring war for this very reason, otherwise we are regressing back to medieval times.