Is it ok for politicians to use social media as their soap box? What if the POTUS decided to become a member of sciforums and started to use this forum as a tool for political purposes? Sure readership would go through the roof and so would site advertising revenue but is this an ok thing to allow? Would it improve or otherwise provide benefit to the goverance of a nation? I just thought that it might be an interesting subject to discuss and no doubt member participation will confirm or refute that idea. Care to discuss?
Sure. He has the same right to air his opinions as anyone. However the forum owners are not obligated to carry his content, and I would expect if he violated the forum rules on material that is (for example) "defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend . . . or encourages unlawful activity" he could be banned.
Do you think it ok for a POTUS to use this forum to make announcements about government policy and executive decisions? If so why?
I don't much like that pols use social media because mostly they use it as a one-way line of communication and it sort of requires that audience members also use social media to receive the communication. One-way: I think there're already too many summary edicts issued by politicians. Social media, especially Twitter, facilitates even more of that. If pols want to communicate that info, well, that's what diaries, letters, memoranda, and memoirs are for. Social Media: I'm not a social media user other than here and one other forum. I have no plans to, for more than a couple more months, remain active on either. I also don't use FB or Twitter. My older relatives also don't use social media, or the Internet for that matter (they all have us, their 40-60 something kids, and their grandkids to use it on their behalf when necessary, but that's not the same as being able to use it at will to obtain information about what their elected office holders are saying, thinking and doing. Why should I or anyone be obliged to be Internet users in order to know what a pol is up to? There's no such thing as universal and free Internet, unless perhaps one goes daily to the library. Citizens'/voters' access to the utterances of their elected and appointed office holder should not be constrained overwhelmingly by their ability to purchase Internet access and the tools needed to use that access. Were a computing device and Internet access as inexpensive as is a radio or television (neither of which has recurring monthly fees), I'd feel differently, but neither is that inexpensive. They can delete their posts. That shouldn't be possible as those posts are part of their public utterances. Social media do not have the same data retention/archiving requirements as the press and insofar as social media platform companies aren't members of the press, there's no telling how much of our historical record may one day be lost simply because they opt to purge posts.
using a science message board as an electioneering platform for self promotion... is that against the site rules ? there would be no free speech the moment it happened.
NOTE if the world leaders all joined in and debated stuff i would be seriousely impressed. more so if they kept it civil and did not say who they were. it is hard to seperate the spectator effect of ego on the thread topic subject though. the suggestion of people being aware and then feeling the need to influence stop hinder or attack or defend would detract from the ability to have a semi scientific discusion of ideas. the site would be trolled soo badly it would need funding to pay for 24/7 moderators
It's okay to make public service announcements on some media designed as bulletin boards. Discussion forums are meant to be interactive. It's not okay for anyone to promote a product, service, organization or agenda on any forum of which I'm aware. But everyone does it on facebook and twitter and whatever the other odious chatter platforms are, and if Firestone can, why shouldn't a political candidate? They're all commodities for sale, aren't they?
One of the greatest concerns I and others have about social media use for politicians, is that posting can be impulsive with out due legal and other considerations. As we have witnessed recently certain tweets have been far from thought through, planned or properly structured ( vetted ). They lacked due care for the legal ramifications of what was posted and the potential of unwanted incitement. When a senior politician posts is his/her legal duty of care more important than say you or I? How can impulsive posting be mitigated on a relatively open platform? Does site censorship force the poster to alter his/ her view in a way that may prove negative to the actual message wanted to be conveyed? Why is it important for world leaders to lead in ways that avoids impulsivity?
I would feel more secure if they posted to a government controlled and run bulletin board, maybe a link only displayed via twitter etc. Using a public platform run by a private enterprise to post government policy and executive orders, has all sorts of issues associated IMO. Being able to differentiate from the person and the title is important. Example: Is Trump posting as Trump or is he posting as POTUS? Leading to the potential that ratings ( likes) drive policy and orders announcements, leaving the unpopular unposted thus creating a terrible distortion in the public's perception of what is actually happening. Leadership is often unpopular in the way they "push" a longer term improvement agenda. Would public posting diminish good leadership to the role of purely popularity based instead? There is also the possibility of a two way conflict of interest between the platform and the poster. Not to mention the potential for secret commissions and special favor as platform revenues increase.
Interesting that you raise this point, because recently the exact opposite argument was used in favour of it. To-wit: Twitter et al are very wildly-used and popular platforms that serve as the primary source of news for many people today. Thus, not only can it be part of political communication, but it should be part of political communication.
And nowhere else. Sure, who wouldn't? But we're not in Washington anymore - or at any recognizable time-space co-ordinates. He doesn't know the difference, the definitions, the responsibilities or the limits. He's posting, identifying, living and semi-functioning as T*HE* T*R*U*M*P. You have no president.
I'm sure no previous President has posted on this forum. Given the typical post here and the current President, I can now have no confidence that he hasn't posted on here many times. Quantum Quack, are you Donald Trump?
Sorry your security clearance level doesn't allow me to disclose what would other wise be able to be disclosed, if not for the security level your question has disclosed. Check the NYT they would know.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hah! That proves you're not him. Not enough dot dot dots, wrong spelling of scurty clevence and, most telling of all, you neglected the most important word in the name of the FNYT (Failing New York Times").
