4 ms·
Honestly I just don't see that. For one, if you're a public figure that Twitter bans you can just maintain a website and your followers will spread the word.
by ravi-delia 6y ago
Honestly I just don't see that. For one, if you're a public figure that Twitter bans you can just maintain a website and your followers will spread the word. If you aren't a public figure, there are plenty of alternatives that serve just fine.
More important however is the issue that Twitter can only block access to Twitter. That it is difficult to switch ISPs only matters because with few alternatives an ISP blocking a site, or you canceling your contract, would lead to that site being inaccessible. The general policy 'companies shouldn't use their position to alter access to other companies' is more defensible than 'popular social media has to pretend to be a utility for a given value of popular and social media'.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoIt sounds like you just have a fundamental disagreement that Twitter has become the primary backbone for public communications between powerful people and their audience (for which there is no viable replacement because of Network Effect), as well as for real-time messaging between individuals and groups. Until you acknowledge that fact, you won't 'see' a problem.
- ravi-delia 6y agoCould you give a concrete example of a scenario where someone is left without any method of public communication without Twitter? Sure it's easier, and other sites might not give the same free random updrafts of popularity, but if people want to hear your message you just don't need Twitter.
- WClayFerguson 6y agoIf phone companies were allowed to cut service to people based on the political leanings of phone calls, then would you be saying: "It's ok, people can just find another phone company or use emails for communication, when their phone is cut"? You don't think Twitter is analogous to phone service. I do. That's the disconnect here.