This is a bizarre comment for a journalist to make. “No, please let an opaque, highly centralized core of a dozen people or so make consequential and long impactful decisions on the public discourse for us with little transparency or accountability.”https://twitter.com/KurtWagner8/status/1028081116341620736 …
-
-
I admire your optimism, but I don't foresee transparency in any of those companies decision-making process. I only see profit maximization and spin. Unless consumers/advertisers force changes, change won't happen. The only voice these companies hear is money.
-
It’s not optimism. It’s the historical sense to know that when new media technologies arise, eventually a court case on them will rise to the Supreme Court. And that Court, which will have an expansive view of the First Amendment, may not rule your way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson …
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This seems a little like a performance of transparency in order to placate certain audiences that will inevitably feel condemned by whatever definitions are developed. From a PR POV, it’s helpful but also hurtful. Hurtful because it seems like a lot of appeasement for bad actors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.