Burton Fisher on twitter.com:Your disagreeing is irrelevant, and you're wrong about monopolies, too, as they make up over 95% of the world's social media. So, it's naïve to think he will have near the same voice, he was just trying to be social, or that Glenn was being literal when he said "vaporized". SMH
We fundamentally disagree about social media being “the internet.” I didn’t say he will have the same voice or was just trying to be social. I was responding to your context of the subset “social platforms.” I don’t think anyone is guaranteed an audience (or the same audience size), especially when relying on other people’s “free” services.
To be clear, I take issue with companies consulting the government about removing content. I’m also no fan of Facebook, which is one reason I promote the indieweb. In the context of the actual internet, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “vaporizing” was a bit hyperbolic. I guess you disagree based on the SMH. Not that your disagreement is relevant. ;]
Responses
★ Jacquelyn BB
Jeremy Lieberman – A big problem that many libritarians have is in accepting that most people can become very changed by behavioral modification techniques. There is well proven science on this.
Hah. This guy replied (then immediately blocked me):
We are only talking about social media, and we fundamentally agree that that usage was literal. But thanks for showing you can't back up anything you said and provide alternate social media, or any news media forum, to match those
— Burton Fisher's tweet
So Glenn’s usage wasn’t literal at first, then it was literal. Also, those were their goal posts, not mine. They wanted me to back up things I didn’t say.
Their initial reply didn’t seem to have that much animosity, so I presumed good faith. I guess this is another lesson in determining when something is worth replying to or not.