[istorical]

But newspapers can't ban you permanently from ever reading again (including bans that track you via device or IP or other factors) for a one-time mistake like a drunk rant where you said the wrong thing. Imagine a hormonal 16 year old makes a violent (but ultimately just them spouting off with no real intent to follow through) threat against a local police department.

In the modern world, they basically lose digital citizenship for their mistake. There's no route for reconciliation or re-entry into society when it comes to major tech platforms and bans. With prison, you theoretically pay your time and then can re-enter society. Not so with online bans.

[iechoz6H]

If by 'lose digital citizenship' you mean 'kicked off Facebook' I think that's probably overstating. I got my first domestic internet connection in 1996 and have never had a Facebook account yet don't in any way feel deprived of 'digital citizenship'. Perhaps I'm unique!

[sneak]

I understand that in Italy without a facebook (ie whatsapp) account it is very difficult to live a day-to-day life due to the fact that most vendors (eg doctor's offices) assume all customers have one.

[omgwtf1000]

Nope, you’re not :)

[RC_ITR]

I wonder if Facebook could be legally compelled to offer read only accounts in the case of banning.

Seems like a simple solution.

[pjerem]

By doing this, you are making them legally legitimate to convey imprudent information.

No, the simple solution is to enforce public authorities not to use Facebook (or similar platform) as their main communication channel.

You know the saying "it’s easy to make a Twitter clone, it’s not easy to become Twitter". Well government don’t need to become Twitter, so what is stopping them to provide a "public" Twitter clone just for those communications ?