> Facebook and Twitter are not communities in any meaningful sense, because they are global, and generally speaking meant for "anybody" to talk about "anything"

> Facebook and Twitter are not communities in any meaningful sense, because they are global, and generally speaking meant for "anybody" to talk about "anything" Why do Facebook and Twitter not have an "I hate this" reaction (I'm aware Facebook added "angry" but this was fairly recent)? Or a way to mark people as enemies as well as friends? Why do they prevent you posting certain kinds of graphic videos or images? Why don't Twitter let you post messages of any length? These are all limits to your freedom to express yourself. They let you create your own groups/communities, but Twitter and Facebook clearly have their own idea of what they believe to be healthy discourse and what kind of interactions they want to nurture, and they encourage that through their UI features and moderation. Same with HN with upvotes/downvotes, who gets to vote and dedicated site moderators. > is the whole global platform moderating everything, It's not as simple as you're making out. I'd be against my ISP moderating what I post online, but there's more to the internet than just Facebook and Twitter. They might be popular but they don't have absolute control and aren't a prerequisite to other forms of communication or self-organisation (unlike your ISP or mobile provider).