MPs Twitter/X Whatsapp etc

[nick]

Prompted by the news that some MPs are abandoning Twitter/X and others
are calling on our government to limit dependence on it (various
sources, many examples) I'm wondering whether governments - our
government in particular - buy a special protected premium service from
social media companies or are subject to the same whims and fancies of
the owners as the rest of us?

The little spat between Twitter/X and the government of Brazil played
out and resolved itself without Elon Musk switching off their Starlink
system out of spite or revenge. Why not? He's done that before,
elsewhere. So I wondered if there was a contractual relationship between
them and now I'm wondering if there is a contractual relationship
between the UK government and the social media companies that goes
beyond the terms and conditions applied to ordinary members of the
public.

My personal view is that it's neither clever nor robust for a government
to become reliant on proprietary services that could be changed or
removed on a whim by their owner. AWS is another of those proprietary
services that can change in an instant but I believe the UK government
has a contractual relationship with Amazon over that.

Nick

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by nick
Prompted by the news that some MPs are abandoning Twitter/X and others
are calling on our government to limit dependence on it (various
sources, many examples) I'm wondering whether governments - our
government in particular - buy a special protected premium service from
social media companies or are subject to the same whims and fancies of
the owners as the rest of us?
The little spat between Twitter/X and the government of Brazil played
out and resolved itself without Elon Musk switching off their Starlink
system out of spite or revenge. Why not? He's done that before,
elsewhere. So I wondered if there was a contractual relationship between
them and now I'm wondering if there is a contractual relationship
between the UK government and the social media companies that goes
beyond the terms and conditions applied to ordinary members of the
public.
My personal view is that it's neither clever nor robust for a government
to become reliant on proprietary services that could be changed or
removed on a whim by their owner. AWS is another of those proprietary
services that can change in an instant but I believe the UK government
has a contractual relationship with Amazon over that.

The problem is that contracts are just pieces of paper. Who cares if
the UK government has a contract with a US-based company, the question
is can they do anything meaningful about it if the company doesn't stick
to it? If they can, the chances are they could do it regardless of any
contracts, and if they can't, the contract is worthless.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by nick
Prompted by the news that some MPs are abandoning Twitter/X and others
are calling on our government to limit dependence on it (various
sources, many examples) I'm wondering whether governments - our
government in particular - buy a special protected premium service from
social media companies or are subject to the same whims and fancies of
the owners as the rest of us?

Twitter does have a specific service for governments and government bodies -
if you have a look, you'll see that they're labelled with a grey tick (as
opposed to the blue tick which is the standard premium service or a yellow
tick which is a premium business account).

I don't know what the SLA is on those accounts, since I'm obviously not
eligible for one and therefore can't check, but it is different to the rest
of us unverified and non-subscribing plebs.

Post by nick
The little spat between Twitter/X and the government of Brazil played
out and resolved itself without Elon Musk switching off their Starlink
system out of spite or revenge. Why not? He's done that before,
elsewhere. So I wondered if there was a contractual relationship between
them and now I'm wondering if there is a contractual relationship
between the UK government and the social media companies that goes
beyond the terms and conditions applied to ordinary members of the
public.

See above; yes there is. At least, there is for Twitter and Facebook (Meta),
I haven't checked other social media providers.

Post by nick
My personal view is that it's neither clever nor robust for a government
to become reliant on proprietary services that could be changed or
removed on a whim by their owner. AWS is another of those proprietary
services that can change in an instant but I believe the UK government
has a contractual relationship with Amazon over that.

Unless a government provides a service it uses in house then it's always
going to have to be a customer of an organisation which does provide it. But
if they're paying for it (which they will be), then they will have a
contract which prevents the provider changing things on a whim. And if
they're a big customer (which governments tend to be) then they'll have a
bespoke, negotiated contract that isn't available to smaller customers.
That's the same with AWS, Azure, Office365, Google Workspace and all the
other online providers as it is with, say, a commercial landlord or a
supplier of pens and paperclips.

Mark

[Nick Odell]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:12:20 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by nick
Prompted by the news that some MPs are abandoning Twitter/X and others
are calling on our government to limit dependence on it (various
sources, many examples) I'm wondering whether governments - our
government in particular - buy a special protected premium service from
social media companies or are subject to the same whims and fancies of
the owners as the rest of us?

Twitter does have a specific service for governments and government bodies -
if you have a look, you'll see that they're labelled with a grey tick (as
opposed to the blue tick which is the standard premium service or a yellow
tick which is a premium business account).
I don't know what the SLA is on those accounts, since I'm obviously not
eligible for one and therefore can't check, but it is different to the rest
of us unverified and non-subscribing plebs.

Post by nick
The little spat between Twitter/X and the government of Brazil played
out and resolved itself without Elon Musk switching off their Starlink
system out of spite or revenge. Why not? He's done that before,
elsewhere. So I wondered if there was a contractual relationship between
them and now I'm wondering if there is a contractual relationship
between the UK government and the social media companies that goes
beyond the terms and conditions applied to ordinary members of the
public.

See above; yes there is. At least, there is for Twitter and Facebook (Meta),
I haven't checked other social media providers.

Post by nick
My personal view is that it's neither clever nor robust for a government
to become reliant on proprietary services that could be changed or
removed on a whim by their owner. AWS is another of those proprietary
services that can change in an instant but I believe the UK government
has a contractual relationship with Amazon over that.

Unless a government provides a service it uses in house then it's always
going to have to be a customer of an organisation which does provide it. But
if they're paying for it (which they will be), then they will have a
contract which prevents the provider changing things on a whim. And if
they're a big customer (which governments tend to be) then they'll have a
bespoke, negotiated contract that isn't available to smaller customers.
That's the same with AWS, Azure, Office365, Google Workspace and all the
other online providers as it is with, say, a commercial landlord or a
supplier of pens and paperclips.

Thanks.

I suppose I am less concerned about supply of generic services such as
cloud storage and email because there are always other suppliers
available. But a government that became too dependent on proprietary
products such as Twitter/X or Whatsapp could presumably suddenly find
itself at the wrong end of an argument with their proprietor.

Nick