I Dream of the Post Office Buying Twitter

from StartupGrind

Yes, it’s a goofy dream. Yes, Congress won’t let them stop Saturday delivery, let alone spend $30 billion on a wobbly and weird social network. Yes, this will never happen. Yes, $30 billion could buy 90 F-35s instead.

But: I can’t get this idea out of my head. My mind stumbles on it every other commute. Every news item about Twitter’s sale spurs the notion. Google and Disney are walking away leaving only Salesforce, but oh: they just bought Krux. Maybe there won’t be a suitor. Their market cap is down to less than $15 billion on the news. Hmm, that’s only 44 F-35s…

Ok. This won’t happen. But the idea is so natural to me, so easily raised, that I feel compelled to share it with you. Perhaps doing so will expunge it from my head.

Here is why I keep dreaming about Twitter being bought by the USPS:

  • It is becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people of the United States, expect Freedom of Speech to not only protect the articulation of one’s ideas and opinions, but the distribution of these notions as well.
  • This expectation is shared by various political groups in the United States, from left and right, in various contexts.
  • When Reddit banned it’s most reprehensible channels, protestors cried, “Freedom of speech!” Supporters of the move chastised the protesters for expecting that a private corporation should be required to host their content.
  • When Facebook suffers a “technical glitch” and removes live broadcasts of police confrontations or protests, we wring our hands about freedom of speech again. When it’s not clear how trending news is determined, representatives from both parties demand clarification. All this happens despite the fact that Facebook is another private corporation which can host, or not host, whatever it wants.
  • Hell, people were shouting about freedom of speech when that dude from Duck Dynasty was kicked off a TV show.

More here.

, , , ,

15 Responses to I Dream of the Post Office Buying Twitter

  1. Joe Murdaco October 12, 2016 at 10:43 am #

    The extent to which our first amendment rights should range has been debated for centuries. Can people literally say anything that comes to their minds and get away with it? The answer is clearly no. People can’t yell “Fire” in a movie theatre if there is no immediate threat. Racial slurs are not condoned in any setting especially in a public environment. But just where is the line drawn? When are we overstepping our first amendment rights? Social media sites have been deciding for themselves when the line is crossed on their sites. They are able to take down and discard any tweets or posts they deem excessive. Protestors have been up in arms with some of the removals of videos and tweets made by Facebook and Twitter users. There are two solutions to this and they both involve parts of the government.
    We can sell twitter to the government which allows all information to be distributed like the protestors want. However, this could spark a lot of controversy in the world. Some of the thing being taken down by social media sites are to save the face of the people that made the posts. It also stops a lot of feuds online over political issues or civil matters. Facebook has “went off line” multiple times in an attempt to remove videos showing altercations with cops and the criminals. We have all seen the types of controversy that is brought up when these videos go viral. They cause entire towns to be burned down and destroyed over a video depicting cops allegedly shooting Africa-Americans for no reason. Now very few people know the entire story and having the videos surface online would not tell the entire story. This is why the sites try to take down the videos. They do not want to be in the middle of the matter by having the videos on their sites and they also do not want the entire country in a riot over the videos. The government would allow all of the information to be shared because they are not a private corporation and they cannot discriminate over what posts are shared.
    The USPS was created to unify the 13 colonies because they said communication was key to a successful democracy. This was a way for them to control the media and to see everything that is being done. The government wants to get their hands on everything and if they buy twitter through the USPS, they are now in control of everything that is being said. There are restrictions to what they can do in regards to taking down posts.
    Twitter can also negotiate a deal with the government in order to have them release more information like what happened with AT&T. This allows Twitter to keep their company but it would give them less control on what they can do.
    There is an interesting idea that is mentioned in the article. That idea is having mail being delivered through social media. The post office could “DM” people their mail as well as mailing it to them. This would further insure that people are receiving their mail because of how much people use the internet now. The ideas in this article are interesting to say the least and either of these options happening are very unlikely but it is something to think about for the future especially if Twitter’s evaluations keep plummeting.

    • Marissa Sarden October 28, 2018 at 11:34 pm #

      In the article “ I dream of the post office buying Twitter,” by Drew Breunig discusses how the United States Postal System should purchase Twitter to control the news. Breunig fantasizes ithat one of the big social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google will one day monopolize and control the information being distributed by consumers who value “freedom of speech (Breunig)v.” For example, AT&T was once a monopoly and they were able to control high prices and information. Since they didn’t have any competition they had dominance over network connections. Breunig explains that these companies will continue to grow and if consumers do not continue to talk about the current situation, social media companies will continue their monopolist. If the conversation does not proceed, then social media companies made the decision for their consumers (Breunig).
      Every time a consumer creates an account with Facebook or Twitter we allow them to access our personal information. Having these accounts also provide consumers with a voice, ”freedom of speech. ” Breunig expresses that allowing Twitter to be bought by United States Postal System will force the consumers to present real identities, continue advertising, and subsidizing development.
      The United States Postal System creating an alliance with Twitter will allow cost to go down in regards to distribution mail, information to be given at a reasonable pace, and for identities of consumers to be real. As the target market continues to become more tech-savvy and reliant on social media for information, the United States Postal System should use this opportunity to create an environment of efficient delivery systems. The idea is quite comical, but it promotes democracy in terms of information being distributed to all of the countries and satisfies all different types of consumers.

  2. Mike Serritella October 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm #

    As someone who does not follow social media and all of its evolutionary points this really does seem like a silly idea to me. Maybe I am just not grasping the point of the article and the message of what the author is trying to get across. I don’t see the point of merging the two together it seems extremely pointless to me and the author even says in the beginning of the article that. I understand that it has the freedom of speech aspect and twitter lets people post whatever they want but I don’t see how this has anything to do with the USPS. People cannot say whatever they want and get away with it anymore, and social media like twitter and facebook have been making their own lines to cross. An interesting point to bring up is to give twitter to the government that way protestors can spread all the information that they want. The only issue with this that in order to see someone’s tweets you have to follow them; the government can maybe set something up where you can see everyone in the worlds tweets which would benefit everyone. I think that this would be the best alternative because you would not have to go out of your way to follow someone and you could see everything that they tweet from your browser.

    I don’t get why the USPS has to purchase twitter, the article gives our several points as to why this would be a good idea and it just doesn’t click with me. It would make more sense for the government to purchase twitter because it would allow people to say whatever they want without the government limiting what they are saying. Yes, other social media sites try to limit our freedom of speech in order to protect their image but this is America! We can say what we want and get away with it right? Wrong. The government watches almost everything we do today and some people feel as if you can’t do anything without the government watching and they are right. You’ll often see people with tape over their laptop cameras or refusing to have any sort of smart phone because they are scared of the government peeping into their business. After the article has its list it gives no action that the USPS could take, it just says how other sites and other companies are limiting social freedoms. I feel like there was really no conclusion to this article and the author just kind of threw it out there to rant about how social media is beginning to become one sided and people cannot post their opinions anymore. This may be true on a big scale but on my facebook I see people protesting the appeal of the 19th amendment. There really was no conclusion to this article and I just did not get the point of it because the USPS and twitter have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Maybe its just me who doesn’t get it but I have a string feeling that there are going to be others who will read this article and scratch their heads as well.
    All in all I really do see this is a pointless proposal and even the author sees this as he states that it is a goofy idea and he says its okay for people to mock him. I may be the only one who sees it this way but to me this just seems like a still proposal and something that should not have been proposed at all.

  3. Sahnera Spruill October 14, 2016 at 2:20 pm #

    The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent establishment of the executive branch. As stated in title 39 of the 13th amendment, “The postal service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the nation together through the personal, educational, literary and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities”.
    The first time I ever had to mail something on my own, my mother took me to the post office and told me to watch her so I could understand. I don’t remember the experience enough to successfully send another package without asking for help but I do remember thinking, “This place is awesome”. It’s an authentic representation of what makes America a great place. We all talk and text on phones all day long, sending signals out. Signals of happiness, sadness, excitement, and laughter. We all call our grandmothers every once in a while saying, “Heeeey Mom Mom how’s it going, how’s retirement, let me know if you need anything”, and then one day we all get the response from our grandmother saying, “Actually honey, I do need something”. My grandmother wanted me to paint her a picture. I remember wondering how I’d give her a painting in 2 weeks for her new church if she lived all the way in North Carolina. It was just at the age of 12 that I discovered a huge part of the world I’ve never even considered, packages. It wasn’t so much the packaging that amazed me, it was maybe the process. The organization, the link between infrastructure and innovation. I would not mind it if the post office was to buy Twitter. The beauty of the direct mail industry, as stated in the article, could move online. That would be a perfect, whole and complete representation of innovation.
    The author of the article Drew Breunig says “It is becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people of the United States, expect Freedom of Speech to not only protect the articulation of one’s ideas and opinions, but the distribution of these notions as well… If we wish to fulfill this expectation, we have two options for ensuring this new concept of freedom of speech is guaranteed: we can make a deal with a corporation or develop the government’s ability to meet this need”. Well his argument is basically that we shouldn’t have such high expectations from private companies. We expect Facebook, Google, Reddit, Instagram, etc. to abide by this familiar yet hard to enforce notion and allow us to say what we want, and how we want to, but that’s kind of unrealistic. It’s like choosing to go to private school but proposing “I have the freedom to express myself you have no right to make me wear these clothes”, instead of just going to a different school. If a major social media like twitter were to be bought by a government organization, then the issue of “freedom of speech” would most likely not be an issue. It would be a guarantee on twitter, who better to exercise the rights given to the citizens than the government?

  4. Jalal Zahir October 14, 2016 at 7:50 pm #

    The article analyzed the idea of Twitter becoming a government regulated entity from many different perspectives. The economic feasibility of it. The technological implications of it and how such a move would change the way information is sent in this country. I however, will focus on one particular aspect the article highlighted, and that is the issue with the 1st Amendment. There is always a debate regarding the 1st amendment in this country. How far does it go? What does it apply to? To what extent are citizens of this nation allowed to say, anything that they want? The answer has consistently turned out to be, almost everything. There was a Supreme Court case back in 1919 that set the first major legal precedent regarding freedom of speech. The case was Schenck vs United States (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schenck.html). It involved a socialist named Schenck who would distribute flyers to people preaching that the mandatory draft for a war was a violation of the 13th Amendment as it was “involuntary servitude.” Schenck was arrested and charged with violating the espionage act, so he took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then delivered the first basic guideline for the rules of the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can restrict one’s personal freedom of speech when that speech is creating “clear and present danger.” In another scenario, you are not allowed to walk in to a movie theater and yell “FIRE!” because the yelling of that word creates the real danger of a fire within people’s minds. This is a clear, and logical restriction of the freedom of speech in my opinion. We cannot give citizens total freedom of speech, because people have been shown that they will abuse it. The citizens of this nation are very many things, and one of them is stupid. Teens would definitely abuse the system and we would have pranks nationwide of people yelling “Fire!” or much worse. People have also shown that they are not responsible enough when it comes to the conversation of the issue of freedom of speech. It seems, to me, that it is extremely difficult to get people to use logic and fact based reasoning when it comes to discussions on freedom of speech. Donald Trump has complained more times than I can count about how “political correctness” is destroying the country. He said the only reason that don’t like him calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, and calling Muslim immigrants terrorists, is because our society has become so politically correct. He has stated he is fighting a war against political correctness, and over the years PC culture has become synonymous with a restriction of freedom of speech. PC culture is not a movement to restrict one’s freedom of speech, it is a movement to be a decent human being. Calling Mexicans rapists and Muslims terrorists is not considered wrong because it is not politically correct, it is wrong because it is factually inaccurate. Donald Trump’s statements have not been chastised because people are trying to get rid of the 1st amendment, it is chastised for being wrong, wholeheartedly 100% wrong. The people who complain about PC culture are more often than not just using the 1st amendment as an excuse to be sub-par human beings. They want to be able to spread their bigotry and hatred without any consequences, and that is simply idiotic. You can say (nearly) whatever you want in the country, but you also have to accept the consequences for the words you have said. Freedom of speech is not an exemption from freedom of consequence.

  5. Robert Andrew Luba October 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

    The article presents a valid point. the world is changing, and sending papers or other letters physically around the world is becoming bot costly and inefficient. Time is something that there is less and less of in every capitalist society, waiting for mail or needing to keep an eye of mail in data form and physical form can be an annoyance for the businessperson. A convenient switch by the post office would without a doubt make the process of reception and reshipment of information streamlined and simple.
    There was a time, before the huge technological boom of the internet that sending paper messages and letters was the only means of delivering formal, organized, and official messages. Now, most commonly, we use email; A concise, quick way of delivering text from one party to another. Email too, however, is becoming a dated form of communication. It is the most common used form of new media in modern business, but it is also not as polished as new forms of newer, more social media. Enter Twitter. The social network has boomed since its inception and has been acclaimed as a breaker of the obstacles set by distance. For example, the first debate between the two presidential candidates was viewed largely on television, but also had millions watching from Twitter on a live stream through the application. Not only does this speak for the possibility for the app to be used by the masses, but also to be used by the masses in America to promote participation in politics. This would fulfill an apparent void in American culture, attention to politics and investment in one’s own country.
    One of the greater boosts would be that it is modern technology and will appeal to younger groups in American and lose the intimidation of more rigid forms of media that are associated with the early days of the web when know how was little. Newer media will give broad communication a newer edge and a softer look as it would likely be the first internet based form of communication hosted by the united states that had contemporary marketers input on design. The removal of any distastefulness from the design of the product will present a more welcomed feel from its use by new operators
    Many Americans have already made themselves acquainted with the application, young and old. A casual way of familiarizing new media to oneself has already been an organic step in the process of advancement. Taking something that everyone already knows how to use and having it be shared with mail would be simple. Much like the concept of receiving written documents from a courier was commonplace in the eighteenth century, receiving data through an application such as Twitter has also become a norm. it is a skill that would, for most, not need to be educated or spent much time on to get a handle on.
    The globe is shifting towards technology and the switch, to some degree, seems inevitable or only something that can be put off until the rest of the world does it first. Although chances are slim to none that it would happen through the acquisition of a company like Twitter, this replacement from paper to data will be sure to happen in the near future, within the next century at most.

  6. Valerie Natter October 21, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

    If the USPS bought Twitter, I think many people would be against it. Then again, many people would be for it as well. I am not really sure how mail would be sent and received through Twitter, it is definitely something that needs to be explained better. Even though so many people now use social media to relay messages to one another, I don’t think that physical mail can be completely replaced. There will be times when sending paper mail will be necessary. Freedom of speech is one of our rights as Americans. That being said, there are restrictions on what we can actually say. With all of this together I really do not understand how the USPS and Twitter would work together at all. I am very confused by this.

  7. Gen Roman November 11, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

    At the beginning of the article, Reddit is briefly mentioned and that was enough to catch my attention. I am avid Reddit user and I have been around for a few of the Reddit restrictions. Reddit users never take kindly any attempts by the moderators to restrict and restrain them. Freedom of speech is a right that they viciously protect. Often, the website will suffer in productivity when their freedoms are being threatened. Although I don’t know if twitter has been through a similar situation like that of Reddit, I can understand why the authors chose to relate the two. Like Reddit, Twitter is an information hot-spot where users expect to receive and share all types of information. A community is developed and the site serves to connect hundreds of thousands of users. Like me, the author uses the same criteria to identify a relationship between USPS and Twitter. In fact, the relationship between the two is even stronger. Twitter already does a good job of distributing media and news. Speaking as a millennial, I am actually more likely to turn to Twitter to get a more rapid influx of information. Therefore, the authors idea of having USPS buy Twitter doesn’t seem that far-fetched. Maybe such an acquisition would be beneficial. I can just imagine how cool it would be to get a “You Got Mail!” notification from Twitter when my brother in Texas wants to “mail” me a letter. I’m all in favor of this method because, if you really think about it, we are basically already living within this system. Companies already email us statements and correspondence. What the author proposes is basically a unification that would use Twitter as the primary platform. I am all in favor of it. I think both businesses could benefit as well. It seems to me that the USPS is losing momentum in a culture where everything is getting digitized and streamed. Twitter may be going strong but its users are so fickle. A combination of the two would help strengthen them both and allow them to reach a broader audience. Perhaps the biggest obstacle that this reformation would face are the privacy issues. Twitter would have to develop a privacy protocol that would ensure, without a doubt, that their users information is being protected and private. Because USPS is federally regulated, that means that Twitter would have to undergo similar scrutiny and all laws protecting USPS correspondence should apply to Twitter direct messages. In the end, there is probably a lot more that would go into this merger. However, I think that it is a solid idea that is worth exploring.

  8. OEF November 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm #

    The blog is thought provoking in that it considers government taking over a media platform. The writer acknowledges that the possibility that twitter will be acquired by the Post Office is a far reach. Even though the situation is unlikely, it makes me consider whether such a move could help revive the post-office, which seems to be declining. Factors contributing to this decline include: the competitive mailing companies (Amazon,UPS, and FedEx) and the decline of traditional mail.
    Perhaps the USPS should consider diversifying, perhaps maybe not necessarily through the purchase of a social media platform. The author does bring up a valid argument in favor of a social media purchase. American do expect government protection over how free speech is distributed.
    Although, do citizens truly want our government acquiring platforms where we constantly exercise our right to free speech. I am not entirely sure that the author’s argument while valid, is true. I feel as though the public would react negatively to social media platforms, like Twitter, being transferred to the control of government bodies.
    The USPS does not seem like the first choice when discussing regulation. Maybe the very fact that it does not function as a regulatory body would allow this acquisition to succeed. The USPS would not influenced by politics, since it is an independent federal agency. This factor might also pacify the public.

    USPS could potentially gain profit from selling advertisements. Twitter is platform used world-wide, it could attempt to attract global advertisers to the platform.
    I think there are advantages to this far reaching idea, but as the writer mentions the government is unlikely to allow such an acquisition to occur. The legal roadblock could be resolved possibly with projections of how revenues that could be gained.

  9. Matthan Martir November 11, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    I think what this article is trying to hit at is that life was more simple back then before we had twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. There is without a doubt that information has never been so easily accessible around the globe. With that being said, what the article is trying to get at is that people are taking advantage of this to extent that they are abusing it. I have twitter, I have Instagram and I have Facebook. Do I enjoy them? Yes, I believe they are a great addition to the new age and it’s amazing how easily people can attain information about something going on in Germany just as easily as if it were here in the US. Do I believe that social media has affected our society negatively, 100% yes. The main purpose of all these social media sites, was to connect us and connect us in a positive way. However, when people have different political views, or when someone just got broken up with, or if someone did something to piss them off, people find it necessary to post it on these sites and let the entire world know.
    Social media can and has been a hub of negativity. You can see it with todays US Presidential Election. People have utilized the easy access of information and abused it to where there is almost little to no privacy at times. Back then when we only had USPS, everything we had to say was private, whether it was about the presidential election, a relationship, or someone who pissed you off. And regardless of your stance on the situation you weren’t hounded on what you believed in. That is what I believe this article is trying to get at.

  10. Nicolas F Carchio January 20, 2017 at 8:46 pm #

    USPS and Twitter, two of the largest entities, which spread information throughout the United States. USPS, the United States Postal Service, is the largest government postal service in the United States, allowing information to be passed through physical writing and other services. Twitter is a social media platform which allows information to be passed through the online media, allowing millions of people to connect and share ideas throughout the globe. Through a merge between the United States Postal Service and Twitter, a new information platform will be available to the public that allows the freedom of speech, which would be protected by the Constitution of the United States.
    The social media platform that Twitter brings forth has the potential to truly enhance the freedom of speech, allowing it to be protected from the intricacies of private firms under the organization of the United States Postal service. Twitter allows for people to place ideas of their own into the public forum as comments on news or as their own opinions. As Twitter stands in its current state, any information that is posted can be controlled by the platform and can be taken down at any moment in time. The reason for this is that Twitter is a private company, and thus can control the information that occurs on its own servers. As author Drew Breuing points out, during events of police confrontations, riots or protests, other social media avenues such as Facebook have limited the use of the freedom of speech. During these events, people had posted videos of the events as they unfolded, and Facebook returned with a statement of a “technical glitch” (Breuing) that had occurred to cut the feed to their videos. Many people were outraged that these videos and feeds had been taken down, and cried out for freedom of speech, which they believed was obstructed by Facebook. However, Facebook is a private company, just as Twitter is, and thus can operate and control the information in which they choose to release and what they choose to censor. With the acquisition of Twitter, the United States Postal Service would have the rights over it and all its platform and must abide by the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In order to keep freedom of speech sacred and available to all citizens. People will have a chance at a more interconnected entity in the USPS-Twitter merger, and thus they would have a stronger faith in their ability to express their opinions and concerns. Citizens will be able to speak their minds with the protection of a government entity, which would bring about an avenue for news sources and other sites to help legitimize news rather than censor news to meet the likings of the private social media companies. Along with the protection of speech, citizens will also be able to send mail electronically to family and friends that can make connecting with loved ones easier and faster in the ever-quick paced, modern world.
    Through the acquisition of Twitter, the USPS could make a lasting effect on the way information is controlled, distributed and displayed to the citizens of the United States. By allowing for all opinions to be heard, social media will give an avenue for various schools of thought to arise through news and current events, to allow for a more cohesive and accepting environment. With the instant sending of information, and the simple ability to send information, if USPS truly did merge with Twitter, then it would create a massive, cohesive media outlet that has not yet been seen in the twenty first century.

  11. Anthony Laverde April 25, 2017 at 3:37 pm #

    This idea was amazing! The author alludes to this idea being a simple thought, one that he doubts would ever become a reality. He goes on to weigh to opportunity cost the government would pay if they did decided to purchase twitter and incorporate it onto the united states postal service. At a valuation of $15 billion dollars, the government could instead invest that money into producing more defense missiles and other military equipment. This would be the more rational choice for the government to make, seeing as most of government funds are spent on defense, and the possibility of a war outbreak with a country in the east (since President Donald Trump is not all that great at keeping friends). However, this is an investment I truly believe the american tax payer would not mind funding. A majority of us are on some sort of social media platform, being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter , or any of the others. This has revolutionized connection between the country and has made communication much easier and quicker than before. People have historically used the postal service as a means for non in-person communications, such as letters, packages, gifts, etc. Unfortunately, the postal service has gained a worse and worse stigma over the years. People believe it is slow, boring, and the workers are incompetent. This idea is supported by articles such as this one, who posted various reviews of former post office employees, and urged people not to ever work there:


    The stigma that the post office receives is warranted, and their image is in desperate need of a make over. Granted, there is not much innovation that can come from their line of work, but progress is still possible, and they are choosing to ignore it. It might be a stretch to compare the united states postal service to companies like Blockbuster and Macy’s, so bare with me: All were content with following the same formula, all ignored or rejected change in order to accommodate to the times, and all were out shined by newer companies. Amazon has stolen almost the entire market, and users do not need to leave their homes in order to ship or receive something. Along with that, they have introduced drone deliveries!!! That is amazing, and the level of innovation there is outmatched. They have the capacity to ship in volume and overnight, similar to the post office, but introducing apps and drone delivery shows innovation. Felt is an app that allows people to hand write a message on their phones. The company headquarters then prints their message out onto a custom greeting card and ships that, again promoting innovation. These apps, like twitter are disruption apps; they have innovated industries and helped push the limits forward. It would be in the best interest of the united states postal service to adopt some level of innovation before they completely lose market share. Twitter could be the perfect answer to their problems and growing negative image. Despite being some wild suggestion, this idea actually makes sense!

  12. Audrey Manion February 6, 2018 at 12:41 pm #

    Although this idea is not very realistic, as the author has already stated, it is still a rational idea that could get national support. Americans’ first amendment right is arguably one of the most important from the Bill of Rights. Free speech is what makes a democracy thrive. It is one of the most vital things that sets America apart from countries with less freedom. Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers knew this when they created the USPS to bring together the 13 colonies and start our new nation.
    Information is what helps a nation grow, educate people, bring about new ideas, and hold people (especially our elected officials) accountable. However, without some way of delivery to the people, this information is all useless. Society has been increasingly entrusting private corporations to deliver our information, but as the author explained in a few examples, they cannot always be trusted to deliver that information all of the time. The idea that the government be responsible for delivering our online and virtual information as well as our paper deliveries is not a horrible idea.
    The USPS is not the most modern and efficient government-run program (not many government-run programs are known for being efficient), but maybe the addition of Twitter’s features would revitalize it. Twitter is the most easy to use social media platform in my opinion, and many public officials, including our outspoken president, are using it already. Our information would be regulated, not by a corporation that could change its terms at any moment, but by the government that must go through many processes to change any rules or laws about the program. This gives the public a feeling of safety with their information, and with the name USPS, it would feel much more official to use its services than casually sending “tweets” about virtually anything. Overall, having the government buy out Twitter would not be a horrible idea, but it is not foreseeable in the near future. The federal government has other priorities, and there is not enough public attention given to this issue. I have not even thought about this possibility until reading this blog, but will now probably be thinking of it anytime that our first amendment rights come into question by the corporations that we are currently entrusting to deliver our information.

  13. W. Velazquez October 12, 2018 at 1:14 pm #

    We all know and trust the United States Post Office to deliver to us our letters and packages. If we can trust them to do that, can we trust them to help in increasing the efficiency in which we communicate with people not just nationwide, but worldwide. The idea of sending mail through Twitter sounds intriguing and maybe the USPS can figure out a way to make that possible. Twitter is used my millions of people to communicate with each other and combining it with an organization that mainly focuses on keeping people in contact with one another seems like the perfect match.

    In America we have protections granted to us as citizens under the first amendment, but Twitter is used by people from all over the world. Would Twitter extend those protections to all of its users? How would Twitter determine who the amendment protects, online you can take on a completely different identity. I would be worried about the issue of privacy. Would using a government owned social media platform affect how comfortable people feel sharing their thoughts, their emotions, and just sharing whatever they feel like sharing? There are parameters that people online need to follow in order for them to be able to share everything and anything they want, but if the USPS owns a platform like Twitter, they would be able to regulate and ensure that what is posted online is safe.

    If the United States Postal office where to purchase an organization as big as Twitter, how does that affect the current users of the platform? I think it is important for USPS to get recognized for their many services and for how they make our lives more efficient. Maybe having USPS take over Twitter would be a good thing, they can help enforce our rights of free speech online. There is also the argument that maybe it would not be such a great thing if USPS where to acquire Twitter. With our current government it is possible that more restrictions could be set in place to prevent people from discussing issues they feel are important. This is a controversial issue, should the government be allowed to have control of a social media platform, especially one that sees millions of users from around the world daily.

  14. Laurie Gallic October 17, 2018 at 12:01 am #

    As cool as this idea sounds the only thought that comes to mind is, chaos. If the USPS and Twitter were to merge the government would have to expand in a way it has not in years. What sort of regulation would they use? Expanding in this field would only lead to more and more cases which the court would have to hear about the constitutionality of the entire application. Terms and Agreements would be thrown out the door to be replaced by the application of the Constitution in a technological manner. It would be turmoil the United States Postal Service has not experienced in decades. Not only that, but they would still be dealing with the process they use today as well as Twitter USPS. The sheer magnitude of establishing such an idea almost seems out of reach completely. By allowing these companies to stay private and not playing a role in the technological distribution they in turn, have more control. They are able to take a back seat and let these companies deal with the breaches in their agreements, almost as if they are deciding their own cases.
    On the other side of the spectrum I can’t help but think, sooner rather than later. This particular idea, addressed in the article, reminds me of a government backed cryptocurrency. This idea came about with the rise of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. Although it is a super complex idea and would also involve lots of new legislature, many have argued that crypto is the next move on the money frontier, and the sooner the government catches on and begins to develop a coin which works for them, the better. Both ideas are not too crazy when you look at where the future is going. The main issue would be resources and money, however in the future I cannot help but wonder if both ideas will be a reality and people will laugh at the fact that anyone ever doubted them. Reflecting on the growth of the United States Postal Service, it has changed a lot since its beginnings. We no longer use horseback to distribute information. Is it that far-fetched to think that this could be its best bet at adapting?

Leave a Reply