[smoldesu]

Then don't use those companies. Problem solved. There's plenty of decentralized and federated platforms that are perfect for people worried about being censored, same as it ever was. If you're too ignorant to use those platforms, I'm not taking pity on you.

[lostapathy]

If I make a post somewhere that there’s, comparatively, a tiny fraction of the audience of the main platforms, is that really a valid alternative?

[smoldesu]

I'd argue it doesn't matter. If Taco Bell kicks you out of their store for breaking the rules, you can't sue them because the taco stand down the road isn't a "valid alternative". There were rules of engagement, and you broke them. Since you are the person who violated the contract, you're objectively the guilty party: the extent to which Facebook can punish you is only limited by how invested you are in the platform.

[the_snooze]

Why wouldn't it be a valid alternative? There's nothing stopping the audience from seeing your content off-platform if they so wish.

Unless you want to make the claim that speakers are entitled to audiences, that is.

[lostapathy]

If the point of speaking in public is to be heard, speaking in front of no audience isn't really speaking.

I'm not arguing you're entitle to an audience, either, just that taking your speech from a major player to a much smaller niche player is not nearly equivalent.

[the_snooze]

The cost of going to a website other than Facebook is literally zero. People do it all the time. The only impediment is the audience's own will and awareness. And they're still free to publicize non-Facebook websites on Facebook. If someone's off-Facebook site flops, that's their fault. Tons of non-Facebook communities have vibrant conversations between multiple speakers and audiences. This site is one.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm not seeing the cost differential, either for the speaker or audience. What Facebook is doing is equivalent to saying "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here." What's so wrong about that?

[trempisacent]

Problem not solved. The issue here is the huge amount of power to control online speech that these few companies have gained, with basically no oversight. Suggesting that people who don't like it should just use something else, doesn't actually address this issue.