3 ms·
If they only published the information via newsletter you'd need to subscribe to that. If they only advertised via newspaper spots you'd need to subscribe to th
by nickelpro 5y ago
If they only published the information via newsletter you'd need to subscribe to that. If they only advertised via newspaper spots you'd need to subscribe to the paper. These are natural social pressures that you're succumbing to and that's fine, that's how society works. None of us is an island.
In any case, you're not being forced to engage with Twitter's algorithm _beyond_ what you've bought into via your engagement with the tennis club. And the tennis club wasn't forced to engage with Twitter in the first place, they chose to.
- toomanybeersies 5y ago> you're not being forced to engage with Twitter's algorithm Maybe not forced, but strongly encouraged. On mobile, a quarter of my screen is taken up with prompts for me to join Twitter. Before it was made illegal in the USA and the UK in the 1930s, nobody "forced" children to work, they chose to (with the alternative of starvation). Regardless of their right to choose, child labour was seen as a harmful practice and subsequently outlawed. That being said, I'm not equating Twitter to child labour. My point is that the fact we are not "forced" to do something doesn't mean it's right, or should be allowed.
- nickelpro 5y agoAnd my point is that your personal annoyance with the nature and content of information in public forums isn't a valid basis for legal censorship.