has blocked people on twitter information must not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time Okay, but one needs to u

has blocked people on twitter information must not be disseminated in a way that isn't available to everyone at the same time Okay, but one needs to understand the difference between an authenticated account being BLOCKED, versus a public account's tweets being accessible to non-authenticated users. If a twitter account posts public tweets, access to view and read is effectively unrestricted. There is no practical reason a person would be unable to view them, blocked or not, other than their choice to authenticate with twitter. Being "blocked" just means you can't reply, while logged in as an identifiable twitter user id. A flow chart of choices available, for how to look at a twitter feed would likely resolve this conundrum. To argue about this is to say something like: "I could not read the disclosure, because it was on page 39 of the Wall Street Journal and page 27 of the New York Times. It needs to be on the front page, because that's the only page my clipping service sends me." If you couldn't find a way to view a public twitter feed, how is that different from failing to take the initiative to turn to page 27 of the news paper, that can be perused for free at a news stand? Where do you draw the line? Does not having internet access count as a restriction? What about not having a twitter account? What about not owning a computer? What about not owning a smart phone? Is making an announcement on a website not a technical restriction by default? Why or why not?