What about it is relevant to this discussion? I know what you'll probably say, but want you to go through the exercise here.
What is different about Marsh being on a public sidewalk, handing out pamphlets, and a service user who has explicitly agreed to the service's terms of use?
I'll wait as long as needed, no rush to answer. Especially if it amounts to further name calling.
A company completely controlling the public square and preventing free speech is not relevant to a few companies doing the same with the internet version of the public square?
A company completely controlling the public square and preventing free speech is not relevant to a few companies doing the same with the internet version of the public square?
Which company controls the "public square", exactly?
The "public square" is your ability to physically appear in public, among your peers in the community, face to face, and have a human connection with them. You do so using whatever medium is appropriate. It could be talking to people over beers at the pub. You could read a poem to a group at a library. You could play music and sing songs in a public park. You could stand on a soap box in the marketplace and shout scripture at passers by.
All of those things are still viable. You should consider them, and the rich history that accompanies them. Their cultural relevance and impact. Why they are effective, and by what mechanism?
Now look a this thing you're describing. This new "public square" as you claim, that is actually a service that a company provides as per a license agreement. How does it stack up to the actual "public square"? Is it really the same thing? Is it better? Worse? How so?
Are you a moron or are you just here to troll?
Are you able to bolster your argument without ad hominem attacks?
These services you confuse with tangible mediums of human interaction are in actuality deeply flawed attempts to reproduce the authentic mediums. It should be no surprise to anyone that the results of trading one for the other has been so decisively destructive to our relationships in the near field and societal cohesion at large.
You've cited a case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501
What about it is relevant to this discussion? I know what you'll probably say, but want you to go through the exercise here.
What is different about Marsh being on a public sidewalk, handing out pamphlets, and a service user who has explicitly agreed to the service's terms of use?
I'll wait as long as needed, no rush to answer. Especially if it amounts to further name calling.
A company completely controlling the public square and preventing free speech is not relevant to a few companies doing the same with the internet version of the public square?
Are you a moron or are you just here to troll?
Which company controls the "public square", exactly?
The "public square" is your ability to physically appear in public, among your peers in the community, face to face, and have a human connection with them. You do so using whatever medium is appropriate. It could be talking to people over beers at the pub. You could read a poem to a group at a library. You could play music and sing songs in a public park. You could stand on a soap box in the marketplace and shout scripture at passers by.
All of those things are still viable. You should consider them, and the rich history that accompanies them. Their cultural relevance and impact. Why they are effective, and by what mechanism?
Now look a this thing you're describing. This new "public square" as you claim, that is actually a service that a company provides as per a license agreement. How does it stack up to the actual "public square"? Is it really the same thing? Is it better? Worse? How so?
Are you able to bolster your argument without ad hominem attacks?
These services you confuse with tangible mediums of human interaction are in actuality deeply flawed attempts to reproduce the authentic mediums. It should be no surprise to anyone that the results of trading one for the other has been so decisively destructive to our relationships in the near field and societal cohesion at large.
Right now, Google/Twitter/Facebook and could be argued Amazon as a backend provider has immense power over the ability for platforms to even exist.
Nothing ad hominem about it, you really are a moron, you have provided not a single argument here.