4 ms·

And when the phone was invented Alexander Graham Bell could have started listening in on phone calls and banning service to individuals who had differing opinio

And when the phone was invented Alexander Graham Bell could have started listening in on phone calls and banning service to individuals who had differing opinions to his own right? Sounds like you'd be cool with that. Ya know. "non public entities" and all. And your reply about that would've been: "Hey people can still send information using radio and telegraph, so they should just come to terms with that and stop trying to rely on phone systems that belong to Bell?"

cinquemb 6y ago
I'm not ok with it, so I actively chose not to be on those platforms, like everyone else could. If people want to be useds, that's their choice.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  I agree with your actual sentiment there. I've actually built a platform myself that has 10x the features of Twitter, in some regards (although a different set of similar features) I'm a huge fan of decentralized social media, web3.0, IPFS, ActivityPub, Mastodon, Pleroma, and the Fediverse, and all that is the FUTURE to replace Twitter. However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring.
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    > However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring. Yeah, well that's not a battle I want to fight. Id rather twitter/fb keep pushing people off their platforms and kill themselves via death by 1000 cuts.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Well once again I agree with your actual sentiment!
mattnewton 6y ago
If radio involved typing another url into my browser or installing another app, and the telephone didn't require running cables across large tracks of public land with the cooperation of government, yeah, maybe that would be how it could work. In your social media example, the only case where it doesn't involve easy alternatives is the size of a public audience; so it would be more like a television host being dropped by the network because they don't like their views. If you are trying to communicate with friends and family, or even with large section of the public, there are absolutely alternatives. What you want is more akin to compelling a television network to air someone because they can't reach as many strangers without that television networks large audience.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  TV/Radio broadcast has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Those are "one way", and involve 10s of broadcasters rather than literally everyone in the world being able to talk to everyone else simultaneously in real-time. You are very very very confused about the issues.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    It is like an anchor because the main ill you have claimed is that someone will lose reach to a large audience- and TV anchors show that we have no right to reach the audience enjoyed by a platform in at least that medium. Why do we need legal protection to ensure we can reach the audience enjoyed by Twitter? Why is reaching out to journalists via phone and email insufficient? Can the public not be informed by someone's website? Is it a question of degree and size?
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Why do we need email when we already had the US postal service right? haha. Yeah, I guess it's all a matter of degree and judgement isn't it. good lord you're funny. Thanks.

cinquemb 6y ago

I'm not ok with it, so I actively chose not to be on those platforms, like everyone else could. If people want to be useds, that's their choice.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
I agree with your actual sentiment there. I've actually built a platform myself that has 10x the features of Twitter, in some regards (although a different set of similar features) I'm a huge fan of decentralized social media, web3.0, IPFS, ActivityPub, Mastodon, Pleroma, and the Fediverse, and all that is the FUTURE to replace Twitter. However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring.
- cinquemb 6y ago
  > However for today Twitter needs to stop censoring. Yeah, well that's not a battle I want to fight. Id rather twitter/fb keep pushing people off their platforms and kill themselves via death by 1000 cuts.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Well once again I agree with your actual sentiment!

mattnewton 6y ago

If radio involved typing another url into my browser or installing another app, and the telephone didn't require running cables across large tracks of public land with the cooperation of government, yeah, maybe that would be how it could work. In your social media example, the only case where it doesn't involve easy alternatives is the size of a public audience; so it would be more like a television host being dropped by the network because they don't like their views. If you are trying to communicate with friends and family, or even with large section of the public, there are absolutely alternatives. What you want is more akin to compelling a television network to air someone because they can't reach as many strangers without that television networks large audience.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
TV/Radio broadcast has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Those are "one way", and involve 10s of broadcasters rather than literally everyone in the world being able to talk to everyone else simultaneously in real-time. You are very very very confused about the issues.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  It is like an anchor because the main ill you have claimed is that someone will lose reach to a large audience- and TV anchors show that we have no right to reach the audience enjoyed by a platform in at least that medium. Why do we need legal protection to ensure we can reach the audience enjoyed by Twitter? Why is reaching out to journalists via phone and email insufficient? Can the public not be informed by someone's website? Is it a question of degree and size?
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Why do we need email when we already had the US postal service right? haha. Yeah, I guess it's all a matter of degree and judgement isn't it. good lord you're funny. Thanks.