> You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press

But you couldn't, for instance, gain access to private premises or gatherings to do so, or force them into people's hands. You could (and still can) hand them out on the streets. Marconi was never obliged to broadcast it on his radio systems.

> There's a reason why those freedoms were enshrined to constitution and not just left undefined.

And they aren't under threat.

> And i m not sure why you keep bringing up twitter

You mentioned it first, if you go upthread - "build your own twitteR", so I presumed that platform was primarily your concern. It certainly seems to be one that's copping a lot of heat for deplatforming lately, mostly around election denial, Q etc.

> a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative

I mean, nobody is completely deplatformed at the moment. There are choices up to and including building your own pages. What if nobody uses the publicly funded alternative, because it's crap? No problem is solved, people relegated to that public platform would still be shouting into the void.

> b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves

If they do so on a commercial platform, which they joined because it already had a critical mass of people, I don't believe you can say they acquired them all themselves.

You seem to be arguing there for a federated system - might be worth your while looking into Mastodon.

> mostly around election denial, Q etc.

I m not american and i don't care at all about those

> nobody is completely deplatformed

I m pretty sure there are quite a few who have been chased out of the internet completely , without being illegal

> What if nobody uses the publicly funded alternative, because it's crap?

So what, public TV usually doesnt get high rankings but is still valuable. It's still better than having no platform at all

> don't believe you can say they acquired them all themselves

They should at least have a real way to get a copy of their audience, through some well defined protocol. The friend identifiers they get should be actually usable, enough so that they could find their audience in another platform.

Mastodon is actually a good platform to use for a public platform, and i look forward to seeing publicly-funded servers.

>You had the protected right to distribute the thing you printed, it's called freedom of press.

That has nothing to do with what the original post was about. Yes, you can print whatever you want. But you cannot compel someone else to do it. You moved the target for some reason.

>but that individuals should be a) protected from complete deplatforming by providing them a publicly-funded alternative

So your argument against censorship is to hand the reigns to the actual government? What happens when your free platform for individuals to ensure they cannot be deplatformed becomes a voice of violence and hatred against a minority group?

>b) should be always able to keep the audience they acquired by themselves

They didn't acquire the audience themselves. They used a 3rd party platform to do that. I don't understand this statement.

i dont think i moved a target because i found the analogy disingenuous. You can also write your tweets in notepad, but what twitter provides is the distribution, not the storage of 140 bytes.

> a voice of violence and hatred against a minority group?

Then it becomes a subject or what is allowed by the legal system, which is a situation vastly superior than being at the whim of a few high ranking employees with no transparency.

> They used a 3rd party platform to do that.

That's like saying dostoyevsky didnt write his novels, he used someone's pen to write them. Sorry i find that absolutely weak