![]() ![]() In a NYT article March of last year, Michael Grynbaum wrote about the NYC Mayor's disparagement of social media. He wants to remove the obstacles to govern. What Bloomberg is describing is very similar. The Parliament had nothing to do with the law, the Queen put it through, so no one can go back and change it at all. Glenn explained that last week in England, they passed the equivalent of an executive order to put in a new Minister of Media to make sure that the media's all on the up-and-up when reporting about the government. The media wasn't doing their job and the story wasn't being reported on, so the word got out on Twitter that Cypus was taxing its citizens personal bank accounts. How did the people find out about Cyprus?" Glenn asked. And, in typical Bloomberg fashion, he thinks Americans are too stupid to not believe everything that they see and read online. ![]() On the surface, it sounds like he doesn't want dissenters given a voice. "Now, why would you want - why would you want people not to be able to tweet? Why would you want people not to be able to use Facebook?" "Now he's going after the First Amendment," Glenn reacted after hearing Bloomberg's comments. He later added, "You can't talk about a complex subject, or a controversial subject, in a soundbite…The bottom line is it's very addictive, it's easy, you hit a button and nobody thinks that the rest of the world is looking at it." ![]() There are just a lot of young kids who are doing things on their Twitter account, their Facebook account, that later on is gonna come back and bite them." "You should write down, number one, only things you believe, and number two, then think about how it would look if somebody else sees it. "Number one, I don't understand why people don't understand that anything you write, anything you send out, is gonna be retweeted, re-Facebooked, re-this, re-that," he said, at a Williamsburg press conference about helping the unemployed get jobs. Bloomberg, who has an active twitter account managed by his staff, just things there needs to be some rules around social media. Collective, is of course worried about "the greater good," not the individual liberties of American citizens. The same governments that are doing everything they can to restrict and block open, unregulated access to the internet and social media. The fact is, the only governments to experience real challenges and threats to power are the oppressive ones like Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. Have any governments that protect the freedoms of their people been negatively impacted by the social media revolution? The United States seems to have more citizens engaging with their representatives due to the tools - they're sharing more news about what's going on inside of Washington and can get real time feedback from their elected officials. (Is anyone really surprised a tool that expands an individual's ability to make their voice heard and impact change isn't on the mayor's admiration list?) He disdain centers around many of things to be expected of someone who likes to restrict individual liberty: It makes governing harder.ĭespite Twitter and Facebook's ability to allow Bloomberg in engage with the citizens of New York City on an individual level, he somehow believes social media creates new challenges for the government. Yes, despite the massive growth of New York Cities tech scene, doesn't dig the social media scene. Despite having a Twitter accounts of his own (personal & professional), a Facebook page, and multiple other channels, Mayor McFascist can't help but bash social media. Didn't think it was possible for NYC Mayor to become a bigger hypocrite? Guess again. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |