On Tuesday 25. July 2017 11.41.48 Max Mehl wrote: > > I would love to live in a world where we could abolish all proprietary > tools. But unfortunately the carefully dosed usage of some proprietary > networks is important for us to fulfil our mission [1]. Especially > Twitter is more or less the only channel for us to connect with many > journalists and politicians at short notice.
So what is the arrangement here, exactly? I'm guessing that most journalists and politicians don't "follow" FSFE on Twitter, so the way it must work is that the FSFE presence must "#" something that those people might be tracking or "@" those people directly. Personally, I'm rather irritated by the spread of Twitter as a replacement for basic communications. It seems that one can barely get any coherent response out of organisations these days by either mailing them or using whatever contact form they provide on their Web sites, yet all one hears about in the media is how Twitter and other such platforms "enhance" relationships between companies and their customers. Those "enhanced" relationships mostly appear to involve people "angry- tweeting" or "sad-tweeting" in order to publicly shame another party into doing something. While going public may be a necessary step in a dispute and is often the facilitating role of traditional media, what we now have is that as the very first step. Meanwhile, the media, despite acting as the promotional arm of these platforms bemoan their diminishing influence thanks to those very platforms. I think what people want to see is a strategy for offering an alternative to such platforms. Actually implementing such a strategy is perhaps beyond the mission of the FSFE, but I doubt that the same can be said for the formulation or promotion of such a strategy. Paul _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
