Suspension of accounts is step one, step two is implementing a policy which reflects the fact that powerful individuals need more restrictions, and *more* scrutiny from platforms ...rather than less
Take for instance the fact that executives and others cannot tweet or share certain market -moving information on social media without falling foul of the SEC . But shareholders it seems, get more protection than citizens in this regard
The idea that power should pave the way for additional opportunities to abuse is antithetical to democratic principles . Public figures, those with power and responsibility, are bounded by more rules in most realms. Platform policies need to be made to reflect this
And @MelissaRyan wrote about this *two years ago* protegopress.com/twitters-revis…
Formalizing and regulating how powerful entities use communications platforms is not in fact undemocratic or somehow a threat to free speech. Without transparency and regulation around the speech of elected officials - and unelected dictators - democracy is threatened
If powerful financial information needs regulating, why isn’t there an SEC equivalent for government speech? And why are platforms not compelled to make searchable archives of politicians’ posts? Twitter for instance will I am sure do the right thing, but there is no requirement
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
