There may be a bit of an hyperbole in the expression "accounts that could start a war": there are indeed accounts of people who could start a war, yet I fail to imagine how a single tweet, or a few tweets, by some hacker could actually start a war. Escalate tensions, sure. But I assume world leaders and their advisors don't rely (solely) on tweets before calling the cavalry.
Sure, how about we dial the hyperbole down a bit, to "accounts universally known to be a primary mechanisms for announcement of international policy by the leader of a country which has started 12 'armed conflicts' in the last 20 years (or 14 if you count them doing it twice in Iraq and Lybia)"?
I find it quite horrifying that elected officials are legally allowed to use totally unaccountable social media platforms to communicate policy to the public.
>I find it quite horrifying that elected officials are legally allowed to use totally unaccountable social media platforms to communicate policy to the public.
It also creates a number of issues. If twitter decides to ban me, doesn't that impact my right to contact my representatives via twitter (especially since a judge has already ruled that a government official blocking a person on twitter does violate their right). Seems that the government should only be allowed to use a platform for communication if that platform is treated as a public square that all can access regardless of past history, same as public squares of the past. This isn't putting a limit on Twitter, they are a private company and can do what they want. This is putting a limit on the government. Now, if Twitter helps the government establish such an account, then they would be a private company choosing to open itself up as a public square and, specifically with regards to the parts that are a public square, losing some of the rights of a private company (they can't ban you from the public square, but they can ban you from anywhere else as the rest of the site isn't part of the public square).
Mostly, I find it horrifying that we would elect an official whose grasp of diplomacy is so poor as to continually use completely unfiltered channels, with little grasp of the effect of such communications.
The ultimate check on the behavior of elected officials is supposed to be the voters. You shouldn't have to have laws to prevent them from making bad choices. In this case, the voters like their speech to be "tell it like it is", which mostly means hating the same people they hate. They're getting what they asked for, and are likely to ask for it again.
Yes. It might still be mirrored on Twitter, but at least that would not put it as authoritative source and the people at the trigger would've a page too look beforehand.
Next thing, some will demand that all communications with the government happen over twitter too (or another private entity), thus forcing people to have accounts on them.
