Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: White House social media pages' comment section

  1. #1
    vantran

    Default White House social media pages' comment section

    As many would know by know the Obama Administration has penetrated the social media with accounts on facebook, twitter, youtube and others. While give people direct up to date information, it allows people to comment on articles/links posted. While many of the comments are constructive, many others are simply off topic/containing anti-Obama or anti-democratic comments or even worse xenophobic and malicious comments that would warrant Secret Service/FBI investigations years ago.

    in contrast, other departments of the US adminstration have received few or zero comments--such as State, USAID. For defence social media sites, almost all comments are glowering and in praise.

    Across the Atlantic, the UK gvoerment also has entered the social media revolution but instead of allowing comments, Number10 sets a "no comments" policy.

    Question I would like to pose: Should the White House stop the comments section (especially on Facebook) and censure off topic/or slandering comments? Shoudl comments on these federal/government social media site be monitored? Is the rationale of encoraging debate reduced with posters simply cursing the President on every picture/link post?

  2. #2

    Default

    They're internet comments. People are dickheads on the Internet.

    It doesn't matter if they stay, are taken away, or monitored.




    rationale of encouraging debate [on the Internet -- specifically on social media]
    You talk as if social media sites are a place for educated, well-rounded discussion (well...debate). You're funny.

  3. #3

    Default

    the problem with blocking comments/censoring them, would be the media would pick up on it and you get over dramatized stories on the news about Obama being anti-free speech and a bunch of other stupid made up shit.

  4. #4

    Default

    There are trolls everywhere, and most of them are harmless cranks. Better to let them vent even if it looks messy. If I were in charge of the Secret Service, I'd say let it ride and keep an eye on it. Watching for patterns, it might make it easier to pick out the few who might be actual threats.

    I'm probably on a couple lists already as I drop in now and then to remind BHO of a few sections of the Constitution he seems to have forgotten.

  5. #5

    Default



    I'm probably on a couple lists already as I drop in now and then to remind BHO of a few sections of the Constitution he seems to have forgotten.
    1) That was not necessary.
    2) Real subtle, really.

    <3
    Last edited by Mink; 06-Jun-2010 at 04:26. Reason: Meh. Changed it to be less inflammatory. I'M A GOOD PERSON.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mink View Post
    1) That was not necessary.
    2) Real subtle, really.

    <3

    Uh.. care to clarify what exactly he said that seemingly pissed you off?

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    Uh.. care to clarify what exactly he said that seemingly pissed you off?
    Isn't it self-explanatory?

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    Uh.. care to clarify what exactly he said that seemingly pissed you off?


    Isn't it self-explanatory?



    [And it didn't piss me off.]
    Last edited by Mink; 07-Jun-2010 at 04:24.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by diapertologist View Post
    Isn't it self-explanatory?

    Not really, no.

    /offtopic

    I don't necessarily think that the comments are a bad idea. And now that they are there, if the Obama Administration were to remove/moderate them, the reactions from FOX would be "ZOMG, Censorship. It's SOCIALISM!!!!!" CNN: "lets see what any jackass with a computer thinks about it" MSNBC: "ZOMG, it's about time the White House got rid off all the anti-administration trolls"

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by diapertologist View Post
    Isn't it self-explanatory?
    no, it's not.. which is why I needed to ask. Even dcviper can't dechiper it, and he's usually good at these sort of things.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mink View Post
    [And it didn't piss me off.]
    You still haven't answered my question and pawned your "answer" off on someone else, which only leads me to believe you were wrong for calling Maxx wrong. Seriously, please explain why anything Maxx posted was wrong or retract the comment. Maxx's comment wasn't made out of spite, your's was you even edited it and the reason was to make it appear less inflammatory.

    /offtopic. This is clearly another case where people don't say what they mean and that whole type of situation pisses me right the #%&@ off.

Similar Threads

  1. VLC Media Player vs Windows Media Player
    By WildThing121675 in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 16-Jul-2009, 19:04
  2. White tiger that needs a name
    By Takashi in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 17-May-2009, 04:14
  3. "OS Pages Pool Memory" Error in TF2
    By Grutzvalt in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2008, 02:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.