Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Foxi4]

A couple of issues: the accounts themselves weren't considered public forums; the comments sections were. Allowing public discourse on the comments section without blocking users and impeding on free speech is different that just opting out of a comments section. That's what the case was about. There's no law nor legal precedent for having to have a comments section.

You cannot make an argument for requiring a comments section be enabled on YouTube any more than you can make the argument that a government must use YouTube vs. a different video hosting site that doesn't have comments sections.

I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration. You're incorrect in your assessment of governmental accounts on social media - they are in fact interactive spaces, and the ability to interact has been restricted to the Like/Dislike button only. I am perfectly happy questioning their motivation and I maintain that it raises important constitutional questions in regards to what future administrations can and cannot do with previously existing accounts that they inherit. The Biden administration is just that - an administration. They're currently in charge of the account in the same way a building administrator is in charge of a building's upkeep. They have the duty of care over the account and maintain it for the duration of the term, however much like a building administrator they should not have the ability to take a wrecking ball to it and punch a giant hole in its primary function - informing and communicating with the public. I can only hope that this move is eventually reversed as it is egregious and unacceptable.

 

[Xzi]

People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying. It's possible. You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not just you simply blowing smoke or trying to be edgy.

Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country. Or starving to death in protest of capitalism. I've been working on possibly doing the former, but the latter I feel would ultimately make no difference. People starve to death all the time here and the system stays the same regardless.

I won't even contend that all capitalist countries are created equal, some are better at minimizing the damage it can do and directing more of the profits gained from it back down to their working class. There's no excuse for not having a strong social safety net when your country's corporations are raking in trillions in record profits year over year.

I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration. You're incorrect in your assessment of governmental accounts on social media - they are in fact interactive spaces, and the ability to interact has been restricted to the Like/Dislike button only. I am perfectly happy questioning their motivation and I maintain that it raises important constitutional questions in regards to what future administrations can and cannot do with previously existing accounts that they inherit. The Biden administration is just that - an administration. They're currently in charge of the account in the same way a building administrator is in charge of a building's upkeep. They have the duty of care over the account and maintain it for the duration of the term, however much like a building administrator they should not have the ability to take a wrecking ball to it and punch a giant hole in its primary function - informing and communicating with the public. I can only hope that this move is eventually reversed as it is egregious and unacceptable.

As if any useful information can be gleaned from any Youtube comment section, let alone comment sections for videos that have anything to do with politics. IIRC Youtube themselves disabled the comments on that account's videos because of the obscene number of right-wing bots that flooded them, starting with the inauguration. There was no discussion or debate happening. Two chimps flinging shit at each other better constitutes a "public forum" than that did.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I can and I just did. Disabling the comment section has changed the character of the account in question - an ability that existed previously has been removed by the current administration.

100% complete lies. I saw plenty of videos/posts from official White House accounts when Trump was in office that had comments disabled, including on both Twitter and YouTube. Get out of here with that bullshit.

 

[Foxi4]

100% complete lies. I saw plenty of videos/posts from official White House accounts when Trump was in office that had comments disabled, including on both Twitter and YouTube. Get out of here with that bullshit.

I haven't seen any, but if they were present, I'm both surprised it wasn't a headline and against the practice, regardless of what administration was in charge.

 

[Xzi]

I haven't seen any, but if they were present, I'm both surprised it wasn't a headline and against the practice, regardless of what administration was in charge.

All the focus was on Twitter because that's where Trump spent the vast majority of his presidency. Every time he blocked someone there it got some coverage.

Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better. It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public. He can literally send a text message to every single American.

 

[tabzer]

Yeah I've already said it's possible...by moving to a non-capitalist country. Or starving to death in protest of capitalism.

You lack imagination. Before vending machines there were other methods of getting food--wherever you are. You don't expect those who are doing so successfully to broadcast themselves on YT or GBAtemp, do you?

*Snip*

Anyway, some people are publishing legal opinions as fact and I don't think I'd trust half the people here to help if I was stranded on the side of the road.

 

[Xzi]

You lack imagination. Before vending machines there were other methods of getting food--wherever you are. You don't expect those who are doing so successfully to broadcast themselves in on YT or GBAtemp, do you?

"Before vending machines" was before I was born. And you have to go back in time much further than that to reach the point where living off the land was common in the US.

 

[tabzer]

"Before vending machines" was before I was born. And you have to go back in time much further than that to reach the point where living off the land was common in the US.

The nature of this conversation speaks so much more about your character than actual facts.

 

[Foxi4]

Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better. It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public. He can literally send a text message to every single American.

I can't say that I agree. One of the first proposed amendments to the Constitution, Article the First, laid out a formula for Congressional appointments - one representative per 30000 constituents. Although never ratified, it's worth considering why Congress thought it was an important matter. The idea was very simple - each representative was supposed to be responsible in front of a group of peers that could, conceivably, approach them and give them their two cents. Anti-federalists had serious concerns, they wanted to avoid concentrating too much power in the hands of too few people that, although lawfully elected, cannot possibly represent the interests of their constituents due to the sheer scope of the constituency. Airing grievances and dialogue play a big part in representation - if you can't talk to your congressman, are they representing you, really?

Obviously this formula wouldn't hold up today - we can't have a Congress filled with 10940 representatives, and the 1 per 50000 math doesn't make things much better, but the motivation behind the article is still relevant. We now have the technology to address representatives directly with almost no effort. Every single politician who's on social media can be @'ed and they have staff solely dedicated to sifting through comments on various platforms they happen to operate on. Citizen-government interaction is important and the ability to directly address various members of government on as many social media platforms as possible aids in just that. You might not be able to ever speak with, say, your Governor face to face, but you absolutely can shoot a Tweet at them, and there's a fairly good chance that *someone* will read it on the other end - that's good.

 

[Xzi]

The nature of this conversation speaks so much more about your character than actual facts.

I'll assume you've run out of arguments since you're now trying to turn this into a mud-slinging contest. We got Native Americans hooked on alcohol and then put them on reservations where they would be forever reliant on capitalism. If even they are no longer capable of living off the land, who is? I have a feeling you're basing your opinions on this matter more on TV shows and movies than reality.

if you can't talk to your congressman, are they representing you, really?

Phone calls are the only way to get in touch with your representatives directly, and even then you're lucky if they answer one out of every thousand. With e-mail and social media, there's like a 95% chance the only thing you're gonna receive back is a form letter response, assuming you receive any reply at all. In theory all this technological advancement should make it easier to get in touch with them, but in practice they're still only one person (with maybe a couple staffers under them).

 

[Foxi4]

Phone calls are the only way to get in touch with your representatives directly, and even then you're lucky if they answer one out of every thousand. With e-mail and social media, there's like a 95% chance the only thing you're gonna receive back is a form letter response, assuming you receive any reply at all. In theory all this technological advancement should make it easier to get in touch with them, but in practice they're still only one person (with maybe a couple staffers under them).

They don't need to reply to me, I just want them to read their feed, which they obviously do since they're all vain. If I can't @ them, I'm not truly free. Forget no taxation without representation, now it's all about no taxation without shitposting. To be fair though, as a cynical lolbertarian I would personally like them to sit on Twitter for 8 hours a day and maaaaybe actually work on the weekends, but you can't have everything, so I'll accept open comment sections protected by government mandate.

 

[KingVamp]

All the focus was on Twitter because that's where Trump spent the vast majority of his presidency. Every time he blocked someone there it got some coverage.

Personally I'd say the fewer social media platforms government is engaged with, the better. It's not like the president doesn't have a thousand other avenues he can use to communicate with the general public. He can literally send a text message to every single American.

That would be something. A president just texting everyone almost everyday. Are we allowed to block the president?

 

[Xzi]

They don't need to reply to me, I just want them to read their feed, which they obviously do since they're all vain.

The ones that run their own social media accounts I guess, but they're few and far between. Before Trump came along, almost everybody just had staffers or interns do it instead. You know as well as I that US representatives are mostly tech illiterate.

That would be something. A president just texting everyone almost everyday. Are we allowed to block the president?

IIRC Trump used that capability once during his presidency, and I was able to block the number once the text came through lmao.

 

[Joe88]

You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.

 

[Xzi]

You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.

That's right, I had read somewhere previously that it isn't possible to truly block it.

 

[Lacius]

You cannot block or shut off presidential alerts. It doesnt come through a number but through your phones notification system. FEMA is the one who sends out these messages, the name is a bit misleading making people think the president is sending them.

That's right, I had read somewhere previously that it isn't possible to truly block it.

I never got the text. It probably had something to do with the frankensteinian state of my phone's OS.

 

[KingVamp]

I was joking. I doubt these messages will ever be sent continuously, unless something really bad was happening.

I did get the message, forgot what it said tho.

 

[tabzer]

I'll assume you've run out of arguments since you're now trying to turn this into a mud-slinging contest.

In my previous response, I said you lacked imagination. Your response to it cemented that claim and appears to be a joke. If you were being serious, then there is nothing that I can say. It's not something I can change your mind about. You are already committed to not trying. It is pathetic, "by definition".

We got Native Americans hooked on alcohol and then put them on reservations where they would be forever reliant on capitalism. If even they are no longer capable of living off the land, who is?

You say "we", so I assume that you are just playing along. If you think "capitalism" is the catchall that explains the totality of your government's actions, then you are wrong.

I have a feeling you're basing your opinions on this matter more on TV shows and movies than reality.

I've lived in the wilderness and sometimes relying on a bartering lifestyle which was, in action, a form of distancing myself from a capitalistic lifestyle where the state knew "comparatively" little of my existence and had less direct control over my affairs. Capitalism and communism as ideologies have no perfect execution from the standpoint of a government that is inevitably unaccountable. Both of these aspects are dualisticaly inherent in human nature. There will be times, in a community, where you want to help someone, and other times where someone's efforts are scrutinized as wanting--even if they are your own.

 

[Foxi4]

@D34DL1N3R, this thread is not a referendum on @tabzer's character, if you two want to argue, take it to PM's or, better yet, don't. Conversely, @tabzer, if you're being attacked, I'd appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate the problem by responding. Both of you know where the Report button is. I don't want to see more personal bickering going forward, consider it a verbal warning for both of you.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

@D34DL1N3R, this thread is not a referendum on @tabzer's character, if you two want to argue, take it to PM's or, better yet, don't. Conversely, @tabzer, if you're being attacked, I'd appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate the problem by responding. Both of you know where the Report button is. I don't want to see more personal bickering going forward, consider it a verbal warning for both of you.

*Snip*

If I recall correctly, it was he that called me an *names* to begin with. I get your post was mostly directed towards the both of us, but to play it off as if he was being randomly attacked is pretty weak sauce.