Cruz is obviously catering to the crazy right, aka Trump's base. I'm not sure about Markey. But I don't blame him for being miffed at someone impersonating him on twitter, if that's the case. I'm not on twitter. But if it came to my attention that someone was impersonating me there, I'd be miffed. And, unlike me, he's a congressman, with serious public responsibilities. I've heard that a lot of public figures are being impersonated on twitter. If this is true, it does present a problem. People do read twitter and do take it seriously. Even if the impersonator is saying benign things while pretending to be Markey, he could very well start saying stupid or false things pretending to be Markey.
My issue isn't with anyone being miffed over the actions of an internet troll. It's with a U.S. Senator using the power of the federal government to threaten a private company over it.
Public figures have been impersonated online since long before Elon Musk bought Twitter. It even happened to me here on this website. It's typically discovered pretty quickly, reported by users, and shut down by the website. There's no need nor compelling argument for the federal government stepping in.
Our country has legitimate issues the Senate should be focused on. Not stupid stuff like "blue check" icons on a private website.
In our democratic system, investigations or regulations are generally imposed only after a real problem takes shape. Possibly that‘s the best - or the least worst - approach here. Possibly.
But what if someone makes antisemitic or racially bigoted comments in the name of a public official on twitter? What if someone impersonating a public official accuses another public official of sexually assaulting an intern? What is on twitter doesn’t necessarily stay on twitter. Word easily spreads. It could easily bleed into the media market. Should we not be proactive?
I don’t think free speech includes impersonating someone - especially a public official. And I don’t think a private entity has the freedom to condone such “speech,” especially regarding a public official who has important public business to conduct. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will agree if they get such a case.
If someone smears you or me through impersonation, it’s probably not a government problem. Likewise, if someone smears a celebrity or a talking head through impersonation. Maybe.
That said, I can’t say that Rep. Markey handled the problem appropriately - assuming he made those two tweets (or whatever they were) without anything else. And I agree that social media should be allowed a certain time to self-regulate.
Bob, this has been happening for years. For example, there were multiple Twitter accounts impersonating Trump when he was president, and some in the media initially fell for their bogus tweets (which included some pretty rough content). Like I said, users called it out, things were cleared up, and that was that... all without any government intervention.
This notion you seem to have — that an online impersonator can do substantive, irreversible damage to the public official they're impersonating — is really weird.
Can you provide an example of this ever happening, despite there being all kinds of online impersonators out there? Worst case, the public official just has to point out that it's not them.
“This notion you seem to have — that an online impersonator can do substantive, irreversible damage to the public official they're impersonating — is really weird”
What’s really weird is that apparently you keep reacting before reading my entire posts and you apparently have a tendency to gloss over nuance. I said social media should be given time to self-regulate or, if you prefer, self-correct. If “things are cleared up” without government regulation, great! That’s preferable.
I can’t give you examples because, with a minor exception to keep in touch with family and friends from afar, I’m totally bereft of social media - I don’t even have a cell phone of any kind, except when I travel I get a burner phone. (Unless you consider websites such as this one to be part of social media.) But I gave you examples of the types of things that may well happen, especially in these highly toxic times.
This is the first I’ve heard of impersonations happening on social media for years and that certain tweets attributed to President Trump were really from an impersonator. This makes me wonder which of his highly publicized tweets were false. All his publicized tweets sounded like him.
Perhaps our disagreement is whether social media should be regulated at least insofar as impersonations of public officials even if they don’t self-regulate, self-correct, “clear things up,” etc. or whether we should wait for a real problem to arise before government acts. On this latter point, remember I acknowledged that it’s possible the best - or the least worst - approach. Perhaps.
The world's richest person can afford a $44B vanity hobby, which is what Musk's Twitter acquisition appears to be. I have been wondering if he is intentionally destroying Twitter, or at least "Twitter as we know it". And I am totally fine with that, in part for the reason you cite in your article.
I think "vanity hobby" describes it pretty well. It does feel as though he's treating it more like a "you only live once" playground than an actual business. But again, that's up to him.
Cruz is obviously catering to the crazy right, aka Trump's base. I'm not sure about Markey. But I don't blame him for being miffed at someone impersonating him on twitter, if that's the case. I'm not on twitter. But if it came to my attention that someone was impersonating me there, I'd be miffed. And, unlike me, he's a congressman, with serious public responsibilities. I've heard that a lot of public figures are being impersonated on twitter. If this is true, it does present a problem. People do read twitter and do take it seriously. Even if the impersonator is saying benign things while pretending to be Markey, he could very well start saying stupid or false things pretending to be Markey.
My issue isn't with anyone being miffed over the actions of an internet troll. It's with a U.S. Senator using the power of the federal government to threaten a private company over it.
Public figures have been impersonated online since long before Elon Musk bought Twitter. It even happened to me here on this website. It's typically discovered pretty quickly, reported by users, and shut down by the website. There's no need nor compelling argument for the federal government stepping in.
Our country has legitimate issues the Senate should be focused on. Not stupid stuff like "blue check" icons on a private website.
In our democratic system, investigations or regulations are generally imposed only after a real problem takes shape. Possibly that‘s the best - or the least worst - approach here. Possibly.
But what if someone makes antisemitic or racially bigoted comments in the name of a public official on twitter? What if someone impersonating a public official accuses another public official of sexually assaulting an intern? What is on twitter doesn’t necessarily stay on twitter. Word easily spreads. It could easily bleed into the media market. Should we not be proactive?
I don’t think free speech includes impersonating someone - especially a public official. And I don’t think a private entity has the freedom to condone such “speech,” especially regarding a public official who has important public business to conduct. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will agree if they get such a case.
If someone smears you or me through impersonation, it’s probably not a government problem. Likewise, if someone smears a celebrity or a talking head through impersonation. Maybe.
That said, I can’t say that Rep. Markey handled the problem appropriately - assuming he made those two tweets (or whatever they were) without anything else. And I agree that social media should be allowed a certain time to self-regulate.
Bob, this has been happening for years. For example, there were multiple Twitter accounts impersonating Trump when he was president, and some in the media initially fell for their bogus tweets (which included some pretty rough content). Like I said, users called it out, things were cleared up, and that was that... all without any government intervention.
This notion you seem to have — that an online impersonator can do substantive, irreversible damage to the public official they're impersonating — is really weird.
Can you provide an example of this ever happening, despite there being all kinds of online impersonators out there? Worst case, the public official just has to point out that it's not them.
“This notion you seem to have — that an online impersonator can do substantive, irreversible damage to the public official they're impersonating — is really weird”
What’s really weird is that apparently you keep reacting before reading my entire posts and you apparently have a tendency to gloss over nuance. I said social media should be given time to self-regulate or, if you prefer, self-correct. If “things are cleared up” without government regulation, great! That’s preferable.
I can’t give you examples because, with a minor exception to keep in touch with family and friends from afar, I’m totally bereft of social media - I don’t even have a cell phone of any kind, except when I travel I get a burner phone. (Unless you consider websites such as this one to be part of social media.) But I gave you examples of the types of things that may well happen, especially in these highly toxic times.
This is the first I’ve heard of impersonations happening on social media for years and that certain tweets attributed to President Trump were really from an impersonator. This makes me wonder which of his highly publicized tweets were false. All his publicized tweets sounded like him.
Perhaps our disagreement is whether social media should be regulated at least insofar as impersonations of public officials even if they don’t self-regulate, self-correct, “clear things up,” etc. or whether we should wait for a real problem to arise before government acts. On this latter point, remember I acknowledged that it’s possible the best - or the least worst - approach. Perhaps.
The world's richest person can afford a $44B vanity hobby, which is what Musk's Twitter acquisition appears to be. I have been wondering if he is intentionally destroying Twitter, or at least "Twitter as we know it". And I am totally fine with that, in part for the reason you cite in your article.
I think "vanity hobby" describes it pretty well. It does feel as though he's treating it more like a "you only live once" playground than an actual business. But again, that's up to him.