>I'm too young to confirm but I assume we had something like this before social media took off. But with everyone connected and very scrutinizing/critical it's

>I'm too young to confirm but I assume we had something like this before social media took off. But with everyone connected and very scrutinizing/critical it's starting to go away. As you correctly pointed out "open societies" need rituals/safe places in which a free flow of exchanges can emerge without stifling "artificial constraints" (= courtesies) which at some point just effectivley dissipates any drive for exchange/communication attaining maximum entropy within its boundaries devoid of any discernible "meaning" (other than our "box" has the highest moral value (i.e. tightly closed) compared to other "boxes"). Some examples of "safe open spaces": jesters (modern: comedians), interpreting dreams (modern: psychotherapy), ecstacy/dionysian rituals (modern: going out drinking) ... I don't see Twitter in its actual form up to this challenge. And it's actually fine to admit that they have long reached a limit to reasonably scale up something resembling the first amendment. Fair enough: the 1st refers to the role of the government. But then in a world of the WWW (with its current tech monopolies) and increasing PPPs: What exactly can be/is the role of governments and that of corporations in the 21st century? Most certainly not a recursion to an 18th/19th century understanding of social contracts (with "high-tech" movable types at their disposal).