[websites420]

The point is that it settles, once and for all, the role of government in policing social media. If social media really is the replication of the public town square, then one that has the same operating model is called for.

Doesn't matter if people want to go there. The point is that it exists, and the model is governed by the taxpayers.

[shkkmo]

How would the existence of a crappy government run social media site that nobody uses have any impact on the issue at stake here?

[websites420]

The issue at stake: governments telling private businesses what they can and can't host on their servers.

Impact of a government social media: If you get banned from Facebook, you have the option to post your non-illegal content on townsquare.us. Therefore, your free speech rights are not being impacted. The right to speak is not the right to be heard by the audience of your choice.

[shkkmo]

There are already tons of sites you can move to if you get banned from a platform, so there is no functional difference.

I get that you don't share concerns about deplatforming, but presenting this as a solution to those concerns is not accurate.

[websites420]

> There are already tons of sites you can move to if you get banned from a platform, so there is no functional difference.

But none of those platforms draw a direct line between the constitutional guarantee of free speech and implementation of that speech. That’s the idea behind the public option: it’s the constitution with teeth, freedom in its purest form, while leaving corporations open to experiment with restrictions as the market demands.

[username90]

If social media is the public square then the government would just seize the servers just liked they seized all the public squares/roads/areas from private people.