upvote
It is not free? You just pay them with your private information and by looking at a few ads. That is not free. Unless you believe information and time have no value?
reply
Newspapers aren't free either. But Twitter, I mean that crappy one-letter site purchased by a chud, is still garbage. I'm definitely not defending it.
reply
You need to make an account to access it. That's not free
reply
I have an account and I paid zero for it. Are we talking about the same thing?
reply
You've paid with a certain amount of personal information.

But to be fair, that's the same with a newspaper subscription.

reply
Worse, you can be banned for reasons unrelated to your local laws and lose access.
reply
>I'm not clear what the controversy here is exactly.

Seems pretty obvious, not every citizen has access to twitter, there's no legitimate chain of trust and there's endless potential for corruption and manipulation.

In pretty much every developed country sans the US apparently governments, even local ones, tend to be obligated to publish information through their own channels because 1. they own them so you know communication is authentic, 2. they can't ban or restrict you from accessing it, they know how that information is made available, there's no financial conflict of interest.

It's completely possible for Twitter, given that the government has no insight into its technical operations, exert influence on who sees what and how. That alone is insane for public, government communication. If the government isn't sovereign in respect to its communications infrastructure your government is run by tech oligarchs

reply
Exactly. It‘s isn‘t just possible, we know it‘s happening.
reply