3 ms·

> Different things are mashed here. Public square implies public (Gov owned) property. A Gov official that posts a comment on my blog wouldn't transform my blog

> Different things are mashed here. Public square implies public (Gov owned) property. A Gov official that posts a comment on my blog wouldn't transform my blog into a Gov owned entity. It would be a disaster if it did because it would become trivial for any Gov offical to seize my entire blog. The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog. If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there. There are no legit alternatives, these social media behemoths are so big they are becoming a town square for communication. They should be regulated as such. > I have friends who work at banks. I said baker. I was alluding to the case that forced the Christian bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I said baker. I was alluding to the case that forced the Christian bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Dang. My fault for posting w/o my glasses. I find the case problematic. I base that on my support of a LGBT nightclub in AU that banned binaries. I also expect to be considering these issues for a long time. > The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog. I don't see how this makes Gov-compelled speech constitutional or in any way wise. > If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there. People behind banned accounts lost the ability to tweet from that one account. "lose access" hints at being unable to read tweets or being unable to tweet from other accounts. It's a fairly poor description of what happened.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> I said baker. I was alluding to the case that forced the Christian bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Dang. My fault for posting w/o my glasses. I find the case problematic. I base that on my support of a LGBT nightclub in AU that banned binaries. I also expect to be considering these issues for a long time. > The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog. I don't see how this makes Gov-compelled speech constitutional or in any way wise. > If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there. People behind banned accounts lost the ability to tweet from that one account. "lose access" hints at being unable to read tweets or being unable to tweet from other accounts. It's a fairly poor description of what happened.