[true_religion]

I don't know how saying governemnt officials should speak through a specific medium is 'censorship'.

Any organisation will want to control its message, and having your officials use a channel that's 140 characters maximum leads to only being able to talk about issues in the most flimsy of ways.

Personally, I think there should be less Twitter and more published in-depth reports.

[vhost-]

Why does trump get to use twitter, but the EPA can't?

[true_religion]

Because Trump is the boss. It's the same way that most companies don't allow random department heads to speak directly to investors, but force everything to be filtered through the board meeting notes, and SEC filings.

What the EPA reports may be factual, but the presentation of facts, when they are spoken of, and how often, are all political practices.

Is it important for the EPA to tweet daily "hey guys, you know climate change is caused by humans?". No, we know it is and don't deny it is. What's controversial is: how do we reign in the problem, what are we willing to give up to do so, and how do we coordinate with our allies and competitors ?

The EPA's tweets may not be helpful in getting Chinese support, or encouraging a positive practical debate on how 3rd world nations can both improve their economies with limited technology and still be part of the climate change solution----or even if such a thing is necessary in the short term.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Because Trump is the boss.

Democratic countries have representatives, not bosses. This includes for the civil service.

[true_religion]

I think you must be taking boss to mean something differently from me.

Your direct report, is your boss regardless of if you are in civil service or not---often your 'boss' is not an elected official, but part of the bureaucracy.

Your bosses direct report is also your boss (transitive law), and so on till you hit the pinnacle of the executive branch---Trump.

I'm not saying he's some kind of mob-leader boss.