How strange! We can have different opinions?! haha

I tried to explain why my opinion is that giantish media platforms are vastly different than a local paper. In a way, the giantish media platforms ARE the new town square.
Keeping out dissenting opinions is akin to prohibiting a person who disagrees with the government from speaking in the old time town square.
IMHO.

Your local newspaper isn't affiliated with LFA-granted utility monopolies. Hell, in some areas Google itself is an ISP.

Analogy falls flat.

Who is "they"? Again, these bans are all being instituted as a matter of policy by private corporations, not the government. It seems that what everyone is suggesting is that the Feds should step in and tell social-media giants that they WILL allow everyone to make use of their platform. Isn't that what upsets us about "religious baker" cases? Furthermore, could it not be argued that refusing service to users with whom they disagree is a form of political-speech, much like Corporate campaign contributions? Didn't the Citizens United decision rest on the premise that 1st amendment protections extended to corporations?

"We" may have footed the bill for the initial development of what would eventually be the internet, but it was investment and innovation by private corporations that created it in its current form. Isn't it a little dangerous to say that just because taxpayer dollars paid for the initial development, that everything downstream of that belongs to the collective?
I'm not an expert on the internet or anything, so I'm open to corrections, but as I understand it, the web doesn't just exist in the ether. It takes physical infrastructure to make it all work. The government doesn't build or maintain all of that, and in all likelihood it probably benefits from the expenditures of profit-driven private enterprise.
Your statements sound a lot like an Obama "you didn't build that" justification for government seizure of private assets....

I think he can post at Real.video and on his infowars.alexjones web pages still


Apparently Lous Farrakhan, another voice of calm, is feeling the heat, too

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/07/ ... utcry.html

Are there genuine viable alternatives to the mega social media platforms?
Do the social media platforms claim that they are not stifling free speech?

From my limited knowledge, most of the MSM and big social medias are left leaning, liberal, Controllist even. Am I off base here? Don't they universally claim that they are unbiased ? Almost universally?

The virtual monopoly based on size and viewership should (IMHO) quash the comparison to a local paper.

Why aren't there more conservative or libertarian MSM and social media?

That's like complaining you have to buy fuel because all the car engines require it, IMO.

Wonder how places like farmersonly stay in business? There's a market for it.

Once there's a market for it, whoever successfully fills that market niche can make some good money.

Make a social media platform for conservatives....

That's like complaining you have to buy fuel because all the car engines require it, IMO.

Wonder how places like farmersonly stay in business? There's a market for it.

Once there's a market for it, whoever successfully fills that market niche can make some good money.

Make a social media platform for conservatives....

ISP = streets to get where you wanna go

Walmart is not blocking off streets so the only place you can go is to Walmart....

Nothing is preventing you from walking around with a sign, or a billboard, or starting your own newspaper...

Simple solution: Stop using social media.