> Obviously it's not acceptable to make threats to heads of state or ex-heads of state, but still I think that's a State Department, Secret Service and other governmental entities that should handle this decision, not Twitter.
> Twitter should not be making these calls that have international relations implications.
Wouldn't it be blatant First Amendment violation (from multiple angles) to have the government making such decisions? You're proposing literal government censorship.
I think I made this point before: person or group should feel pressured to disseminate some foreign state's propaganda unless some government bureaucrat gives them the OK not to.
Sate Affairs/Secrets override the 1A because the fate of the country may be in the balance, so I do understand that need. I mean this is state-state business and communication, not Jack and Joe Nobody.
> I mean this is state-state business and communication, not Jack and Joe Nobody.
It is not state-state business and communication. That kind of thing is not done on Twitter. At all.
The closest is propagandistic back and forth needling, but that's not diplomacy, it's PR/propaganda: the real audience for that is the public, not the other state's government.
> Twitter should not be making these calls that have international relations implications.
Wouldn't it be blatant First Amendment violation (from multiple angles) to have the government making such decisions? You're proposing literal government censorship.
I think I made this point before: person or group should feel pressured to disseminate some foreign state's propaganda unless some government bureaucrat gives them the OK not to.