Feel free to link any biased news article or Politifact telling me how it wouldn't have mattered or wasn't that effective. That's a lie, it capped the prices, but at least ask yourself if doing nothing is better, or worse, cancelling an action that did something. Then ask why they did it. Just like many other reversals it wasn't for you, it was for Pharma buddies. They say one thing and do another.
You focused on the wrong part, I could have left out "to govern". My point was there's no evidence of anyone using DMs, we're talking about public tweets. And there's no use talking about private communications because the scope expands from Twitter to the individual's actions (sneaking around using Signal or similar, etc.).
Twitter and other social media behemoths still enjoy this protection.
There's been proposals to hold these behemoths accountable by taking away their liability IF they do not act neutral and meet a certain criteria (X users, X income, etc.).
Yes, because there's no evidence of anyone using DMs to govern.
We don't know if a politician uses Signal, Twitter/IG DM, or other 1:1 communication apps, we have to handle those cases when we catch them, like Hillary was caught with her private email server. If she was actually punished it may have deterred people from circumventing FOIA.
I would be directly opposed to such communication the same way I'm opposed to a private email server being used. Communicating in public tweets is entirely different though.
> If Twitter is a national security risk because people can hack it to speak in the official voice of prominent leaders, or discover state secrets through direct messages, that is nobody's fault but the government's, for relying on a platform they have no control over for official business.
I don't see the government relying on it. I see public officials using it as a platform. No coordination is being done (unless it's redundancy), just communication with constituents.
> It was a scandal when Hillary Clinton relied on a private email server.
One problem with using a private email server was because it circumvented FOIA requests. Twitter is open, a private email server is not. We still don't know what 33k of the subpoenaed emails were about that her personal IT guy deleted, other than the ones found on Huma Abedin's laptop.
The other problem of course is having a personal IT staff run your email server with classified secrets (yes there were classified emails). It's not quite the same as having Twitter or the DoD run your security. I mean, the guy (stonetear) was on Reddit asking how to delete emails, I doubt he knew how to protect against state actors.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28...
Feel free to link any biased news article or Politifact telling me how it wouldn't have mattered or wasn't that effective. That's a lie, it capped the prices, but at least ask yourself if doing nothing is better, or worse, cancelling an action that did something. Then ask why they did it. Just like many other reversals it wasn't for you, it was for Pharma buddies. They say one thing and do another.