The context of my comment was not reading the qz.com link. So now it seems redundant. But now that I have read it, I'm confused even more about the responses.

The context of my comment was not reading the qz.com link. So now it seems redundant. But now that I have read it, I'm confused even more about the responses. Blocking people on Twitter is arguably (because the courts are saying so) a violation of the constitution. For an elected official at least. If someone wants to regulate speech, and they have tried and been prevented from doing so on first amendment grounds, it seems likely motivation to search for a legal alternative method to achieve their goals. Is AOC against Facebook regulating content then? I don't think I see the motivation/goal attributed to her as illegitimate. Maybe everyone is taking for granted that it's a "loophole".