4 ms·

I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and s

I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and social media are tools for person to person communication.

scarface74 4y ago
The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly. There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I'm not talking about cell networks. Common carrier also applied to POTS (i.e., copper wire), a system that (unlike the airwaves) was built entirely by private companies. And once again, it's not about having alternative walled gardens (which already exist). It's about promoting open debate on all platforms. What's wrong with that? If censorship is the only way your ideas can win, your ideas suck. Incidentally, this also protects the far left if Elon Musk ends up buying Twitter.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    If the government wants to provide a place for open debate, it is free to create a taxpayer funded service to do so. If a Christian organization sets up social media website, should it be forced to host a forum to allow open debate about the existence of God? Again, conservatives love “limited government” and the free markets until neither work in their favor. Truth Social is an existence proof that the free market is working as it should.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

4 ms·

I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and s

by leereeves 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago
The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly. There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I'm not talking about cell networks. Common carrier also applied to POTS (i.e., copper wire), a system that (unlike the airwaves) was built entirely by private companies. And once again, it's not about having alternative walled gardens (which already exist). It's about promoting open debate on all platforms. What's wrong with that? If censorship is the only way your ideas can win, your ideas suck. Incidentally, this also protects the far left if Elon Musk ends up buying Twitter.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    If the government wants to provide a place for open debate, it is free to create a taxpayer funded service to do so. If a Christian organization sets up social media website, should it be forced to host a forum to allow open debate about the existence of God? Again, conservatives love “limited government” and the free markets until neither work in their favor. Truth Social is an existence proof that the free market is working as it should.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]