One of the canned responses we have observed Zuckerberg make to the media in response has been something along the lines of "Facebook gives people who would not

One of the canned responses we have observed Zuckerberg make to the media in response has been something along the lines of "Facebook gives people who would not otherwise have a voice a chance to be heard" (words are mine, not theirs). The web already did that. By advocating that the world use only a single website to "speak", we allowed a single website owner to create a business by charging its users for the opportunity to publish their "speech" to segments of the website's audience. The reason most of those millions of people "joined" Facebook was not to voice their opinions to an audience. It was to communicate with family and friends. A new mode of communication. If those people who wanted to voice their opinions to audiences had their own websites, who would visit them? Would they have an audience of millions? (The term "millions" is used here as an expression for "many", not as an accurate estimate of the numbers in question) I have heard that there is talk in the US media of doing away with the US Postal Service. AKA Ye Olde Mode of Communication. It is unsettling how far things have come in eroding the American's right to be free from commercial or ideological pandering. There used to be a legally recognised principle that an American could say "No more", and then the pandering must stop. Try that with Facebook or any other "tech" company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Form_1500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Form_1500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Office_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Of...