White House Bans Twitter?
from the communication? dept
Well this is odd. Twitter was one of the many tools that President Obama used to help build up a strong base of supporters, and the White House has its own Twitter feed that is quite popular. Yet, reader Ben points out that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has now admitted that Twitter is blocked from White House computers. Wonder who's updating the official feed, then... Apparently this isn't actually a new thing. A couple months ago, it came up in another press conference, and it came out that only a small number of "new media" folks are allowed to have access to Twitter from the White House. Someone ought to let the White House IT staff know that it's easy to update Twitter via SMS from your phone... Either way, makes you wonder if only the media communications people in the White House are allowed to use telephones, too.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: communications, robert gibbs, twitter, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTG Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read the headline and immediately thought, "They did WHAT??? God Dammit I didn't really like this Obama puppet before, but NOW I'm pissed!"
Then I read the article and realized that all they did is exactly what MY office does. So now I've got all of this rage creating an absess in my left cornea.
Lawsuit pending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You must seriously have no clue how the government works at all if you assumed anything from the headlines besides their own internal policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We win again!
Keep up the good work, boys. The more Congressional inbreeding, the better. Plus, before you know it, our lobby will finally get those bills based on Mein Kampf ideology passed! Seig Heil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Network Strategist
Come on seriously! its WH not Best Buy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agreed with commenters
Sometimes this blog smells like fried chicken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
So you're interested in the OP yet you're complaining about him blogging about it? Interesting (hypocritical). If you comment on a blog because you are interested why are your comments negative about the blogger?
"You're the one outraged about something not outrageous."
I'm not outraged, I'm just pointing out your stupidity. In as much as you claim Mike is outraged you can be said to be equally outraged about something not outrageous, someone posting about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
I'm not mad so I have nothing to get over. It was you who was outraged about something not outrageous and I was merely pointing our your hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
Mike works very hard to make my comments (and the comments of a few other people) look like extremist rantings. His usual dismissal is "you need to go back to school", or "you just don't get basic economics", all the while spouting off stuff that made one MBA I know actually spit coffee on his laptop.
Oh yeah, the topper: Try to pin Mike down on anything he posts, and he usually comes up with the "I didn't say that, you misread me" or "I didn't say that, it's just info from another site", all the while squirming around and trying so hard not to have an actual opinion in writing anyone can pin him to.
The whole CfW+ deal is proof that he has cultivated some serious sheep here, falling for his stuff and actually giving him more justification on the way by. Buying his t-shirts or going to play miniputt with him is just fueling his very unrealistic view of the way things can work - most people getting something for nothing and a few people massively overpaying for just slightly more than the something everyone else got for nothing.
So in the end, my views aren't very extremist, in fact I think I am very much middle of the road. It's easy for Mike to get positive comments when he is sucking the teat of the torrent sites and their users, but in the end, once people move out of Mom's basement and actually start making things of value for a living, they start to realize that there is no "FREE!" lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
You missed the point. You used the words, "outrage and something that isn't outrageous." but in as much as Mike indicated outrage you did so as well. Not that either of you did but if anything your posts indicate more outrage than his.
"Mike works very hard to make my comments (and the comments of a few other people) look like extremist rantings."
"So in the end, my views aren't very extremist"
As if you are the ultimate judge of your own views, as if you are even qualified to judge your own views because you have no conflicts of interest.
He doesn't need to, you are great at doing that all on your own.
"most people getting something for nothing and a few people massively overpaying for just slightly more than the something everyone else got for nothing."
You mean like when cable companies lobby for a monopoly and they lobby to have the government pay for the infrastructure so they can get something for nothing while taxpayers and customers are massively overpaying for nothing but commercials as a result of their lobbying efforts. You mean when the R&D from pharmaceuticals are often government funded yet the pharmaceutical corporations get the patents and they end up getting something for nothing while spending more on marketing and advertising than they do on R&D?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
He doesn't need to, you are great at doing that all on your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
You had a couple of cups to many of Mike's Koolaid.
No, I am talking about Mike's proposed business models, especially for the music industry, which is to give their music away for free, and then charge the true fans much larger amounts of money for things like concert tickets and t-shirts to make up the bottom line. The vast majority get something for nothing (free music) and a very small minority end up overpaying for other stuff to make it up.
Your comments just prove that you are solidly in Mike's camp, which makes your judgement of me somewhat less relvant, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
I agree which is why we need to alleviate government regulations like intellectual property and make people work for their money. People shouldn't be allowed to freeload off of someone else's work just because they may have some patent that might remotely resemble some product that someone else is producing. If you want your lunch you have to work, you must compete in the free market, you can't lobby the government to hold your hand and give you monopolies (ie: cable companies) and patents so that you can simply look for someone who may accidentally create a product with a component that somewhat resembles your patent and sue. Enough of people lobbying the government for a free lunch and for regulations that benefit only special interest groups, we need to stand up for what's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
"Your comments just prove that you are solidly in Mike's camp, which makes your judgement of me somewhat less relvant, no?"
I am not judging you, just pointing out the shortcomings of your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
If anything the fact that you accuse him of being outraged with no evidence demonstrates your unjustified outrage against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
Sounds somewhat outraged to me, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agreed with commenters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every work in a HIGH security job
OK, now with that said only a fool would allow an open communication channel such as Twitter in the WH. Most/almost all people really don't have a clue what is going on day after day in this world. All it would take to get dozens killed is some boob to Twitter just a bit of info.
And guys if you don't like what I said well you know what they say about where the sun don't shine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every work in a HIGH security job
It's true, most are brainwashed to the fact that corporations control everything. Though I am not stating an opinion about this specific incident though, perhaps there is legitimate cause and perhaps not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every work in a HIGH security job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every work in a HIGH security job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One reason it's not allowed is...
NARA basically says that ANYTHING that is done in "machine readable" content during the conducting of official business is considered a Federal record. Federal records are required to be archived based upon a disposition schedule that each Agency is required to establish. The White House has a higher standard to uphold simply because it's The White House.
This means that every single tweet must be saved/archived to some location on their network. If you know Twitter, you're only limited to about 7 days of history. So it's a matter of using a service that can archive tweets continuously, without interruption, beyond the 7 days. Of course, then it's harder to use a 3rd-party service due to TOS agreements, privacy policies, cookie policies, 3rd-party endorsements, information quality act, etc, etc, etc. So, you need to build it in house.
Although "loose lips sink ships" might be part of the fear if every WH employee was tweeting...that can be handled from a management standpoint. But the records preservation also has to be addressed which is harder to do if every employee is tweeting. So limiting usage to a single office with a handful of people is easier to do when dealing with recording every tweet.
I'm sure there's much more to it than just not allowing the site to be accessed from within WH. It's obviously possible. There are other factors that I'm sure come into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One reason it's not allowed is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]