It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Park Service is Banned From Tweeting

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Personal opinions are to be express on personal accounts, not on government owned accounts. They like you be, you know, professional. To set aside opinions, on a professional level. I don't see the problem.




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: trb71
If this reads right, he didn't just shut down the National Parks Service Twitter. He shut it down for the entire Dept. of Interior. Which includes many agencies like the USGS. My guess he wants to ensure there aren't any dissenters..but looks fishy to me.


Well when a company gets a new boss, he likes to evaluate his employees, and make sure they are on the same page about what needs to be done to help the company.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
Government bodies are not supposed to be partisan. They work for the government.
This was the use of official communications for the expressing of private opinions. If employees want to express their private opinions, they need to do it on their private Twitter accounts.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
This is the actual crowd size.



So it's safe to say that the NPS retweeted false information.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
Some government worker using the official National Park Service twitter handle to bash the sitting President. Of course the idiot got shut down. Use your own private account for that #.


Yep, a govt dept representing the govt should never do that. If it were the military for instance, it could be considered treason.

This is not about freedom of speech, it's about whom you represent and what image you are portraying. Try the same thing in the corporate world and one would find themselves out of a job before they could say 'unemployable'



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Remember when people having government positions said horrible things about Obama and got fired?

What they said was horrible but on a private account, not the governments.

Its never justified, but if I use a company's twitter go bash it... They might tell me to stop.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I support this completely. If the National Park Service, a federal government agency, chooses to use social media to communicate with the public, then that communication on behalf of the NPS should be in relation to the NPS or its various duties and responsibilities. Something like "Friendly reminder from the NPS: Be careful not to start forest fires!" would be appropriate. Using the social media account of a federal government agency to share political opinions and criticize the president is NOT appropriate. Whoever was responsible needs to be held accountable for that.

Now, on the other hand, if an individual member of the NPS wants to use their own personal social media account to share their opinions or criticize the president, I believe they should be fully allowed to. That's their right as an American Citizen with the freedom of speech that is granted.

What happened however was that a person hijacked a federal government agency and used it to spread their own personal politically-motivated attacks that had nothing to do with the agency itself, thereby hurting the image of the agency.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
To add to what I said earlier. I completely support that the employee be reprimanded or fired. But this still seems like a massive overreach to me. The way it reads it also stops tweets from accounts used for emergencies for both the USGS (Earthquake and Tsunami) and Parks communications.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

And that's not silencing them because....why?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: underwerks

Remember when people having government positions said horrible things about Obama and got fired?

What they said was horrible but on a private account, not the governments.


No, care to show us?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Hey guys?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If it's a big no-no under any circumstances, then why do we applaud it when some other government's employees do the same thing on their social media accounts? What's good for the goose is not good for the gander? That's...a double standard.

Mind you, I'm not entirely disagreeing that someone crossed a line. Canning the employee would have certainly been permissible if they broke any contractual agreement regarding what to/not to post. Suddenly shuttering all accounts until further notice these days is what used to be called in the olden days "silencing the dissidents". Think about that, and keep an eye on where this goes from here. I don't want to have to toss another "Told Ya So" on the pile.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It was bad enough that Obama silenced and prosecuted whistle-blowers, now Trump wants to silence dissenting voices in government. If he keeps on trying to silence the press and his own government, he's going to be treading on dangerous 1st amendment rights. He could face impeachment hearings if he continues down this path. He needs to grow a thicker skin because the criticism is only going to get worse, and not just by his own government.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MysticPearl

And that's not silencing them because....why?


Not silencing them from posting private opinions on a private account, just told them they cannot use a govt account to post private opinions.

Kind of like as a member of the military I cannot attend a political rally in uniform, I can not say anything negative of the president in a public setting while in uniform etc..



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
why do we applaud it when some other government's employees do the same thing on their social media accounts?

On THEIR OWN social media accounts. That is the crucial difference.
Official social media accounts are for official business.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
FFS - some of the mental gymnastics in this thread are exquisite - fatally flwed bollox - but still entertaining

which bit of the concept that :

" the NPS twitter feed is a tool to comuniate NPS policy , saftey warnings , event and attractions sponsored or aproved by the NPS , etc to the public "

it is NOT a platform for employees to spam thier opinions on any topic - all tweets should reflect the mandate and policies of the NPS

the cockwombles who did this should ne fired for gross missconduct

they do not have any free speech right to use the NPS channels for thier private political opinions

thats what thier own channels are for



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I worked for Verizon previously; and let me tell you, if you were hired by them, you signed and agreed to being a respectful member of that company. It was made clear that your public image was part of your responsibility of being an employee for them also. Integrity is big with them.

Now, that being said, this insubordinate who posted these tweets on a government website, IMO should be fired. The NPS account was used for their personal use. He should be fired and lose his pension. Sick of disloyal, entitled, crybabies.


edit on 21-1-2017 by KTemplar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I don't see why every department under the Dept. of the Interior has to stop using their Twitter accounts. Seems like a huge over reaction.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

it does smack of a " sledge hammer > peanut " reaction - but one hopes there is " more to it " - to trigger such a blanket response



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
This actually is a very normal thing.

Using an official channel to spout personal opinion has always been a big no-no.

People working for, or assigned to something still have their freedom of expression.....just not with official channels.

For example: if I were to create a thread here on ATS and say that The Above Network officially endorses Trump, or say something nasty about Trump and claim that is The Above Networks official stance on it (or is alluded to because I'm saying it comes from The Above Network), my butt would be quickly banned from ATS.

That's because I would be abusing my position as a staff member here at ATS. Only the owners of ATS may make official announcements like that, or declare how ATS feels about something.

At the same time however, as a member here on ATS, I can express my personal opinion all I want (as long as I follow and obey the TCs here).

This is the exact same thing here with the National Park Service. The men and women that work there still have their freedom to their personal opinions.

But they are not suppose to use official channels to express them.

It's as simple as that.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


according to an internal email obtained by Gizmodo


And the @nationalparkservice .....

last post Jan 19th.




fake news about fake news



new topics




 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join