@LouisIngenthron If you are good at getting access to your representative, the rep is largely just a prop. It’s all about getting thousands of other users boosting and holding up your msg to the rep. THAT is what compels a rep to read what you write.

@koherecoWatchdog So... a petition?

Why do you think these concepts are unique to social media?

@LouisIngenthron A petition has a threshold requirement that open letters do not. If you don’t collect enough sigs (a labor-intensive effort), the msg never gets to the rep.

@LouisIngenthron Petitions are also off-limits to non-citizens. You are limited to those who qualify to sign the petition.

@koherecoWatchdog And fixing that would be a reasonable reform that many people could get behind.

@LouisIngenthron Yes it would but it still would not reach a point where a petition could be the drop-in replacement for an open letter.

@koherecoWatchdog ...which is why we have open letters.

@LouisIngenthron You claimed just a moment ago that petitions replace open letters, so we don’t need open letters. You claimed if you can’t get enough sigs, the idea has no merit worthy of the reps attention. Now you’re saying open letters have a place. Yet these are the same open letters that have weakened in the face of the internet.

@LouisIngenthron Hence microblogging as a tool to effectively get a msg to a rep with the degree of impact open letters had 50+ years ago.

@koherecoWatchdog Great! If you want to do that and access that microblog platform's audience, then all you have to do is agree to play by their rules. Free marketplace of ideas in action.

@LouisIngenthron Update: two #USCongress reps now respect the First Amendment (#1A) in the microblogging domain:

Chellie Pingree→
@chelliepingree

Don Beyer→ @RepDonBeyer

@koherecoWatchdog No, I didn't.

@koherecoWatchdog If you don't get enough signatures, then the message wasn't important enough to get to the rep.
That's just good sense.

@LouisIngenthron Nonsense. You might not get enough signatures because you work 8 hrs a day and don’t have time to stand on enough street corners. There are countless reasons to not get enough sigs that has nothing to do with the merit of the idea.

@koherecoWatchdog The whole point of a petition is collective action. If you're the only one getting signatures, you've already failed.

@LouisIngenthron Failed, yes, but not failure in the quality of the idea. Collecting signatures requires a hell of a lot of effort compared to microblogging to a rep. It’s a different tool for a different job. You’re saying in effect “we have a hammer so we don’t need a screwdriver”. Petitions do not replace microblogging. Microblogging comes before petitions, & it distributes petitions.

@koherecoWatchdog It's really no different. Your impact is determined by the size of your audience and an audience takes effort to build, both in person and online. You can't just sign up for an account and magic up thousands of followers any more than you can magic up thousands of signatures on a petition.

@LouisIngenthron Your impact is determined by the tools at your disposal. If you do not have Twitter access, your impact will be lessened. This is why you see orgs whose purpose for existence is to oppose Twitter -- on Twitter. Lots of factors go into impact but Twitter access is certainly one of them. It’s like a mechanic without a screwdriver. They must use a butter knife, which may not work.

@LouisIngenthron (the butter knife in this case being comparable to the old fashioned open letter of 50 yrs ago)

@koherecoWatchdog And just like the open letters of yesteryear, if you want to use other people's property to amplify your message, you have to play by their rules. Whether it's a newspaper or a social media company.

Nobody has any more right to force social media to host their speech than they do to force a newspaper to run their letter.

@LouisIngenthron It’d be intellectual dishonesty to even claim there’s rules in play in the 1st place. The rules are posted, your post breaks none of them, moderator doesn’t like the msg b/c it doesn’t convey their view of the world, so they delete it. None of my suppressed Reddit msgs actually broke any Reddit rules. It’s a big part of the problem.. the deception of rules.

@koherecoWatchdog I don't know Reddit's explicit TOS language, but I know Twitter's says they can ban you for "any reason or no reason at all". I imagine Reddit's is similar.

If you don't like those rules, don't agree to them.

@LouisIngenthron Every forum has a list of rules which msgs must conform to. Every moderator invents their own secret rules & suppresses rule-abiding msgs that don’t facilitate the narrative they want conveyed. So no, it’s not a transparent set of rules as you suggest. It would fail the “meeting of the minds” test.

@LouisIngenthron W.r.t Twitter, the mere existence of policy that makes the service exclusive is a 1A infringement on the part of politicians who exclusively put their presence there. If you don’t have a mobile phone, you lose the option of microblogging to a public figure. It’s inherently a 1A breach to put the rules of a privately owned asset between a representive & the people.

@koherecoWatchdog (A) you don't have to have a phone to access Twitter. You can use a computer, even one at the library.
(B) There's an argument to be made that it's a 1A breach by the account holder (not a great one), but that's still not the service provider's problem.

@LouisIngenthron (a) I know that’s bullshit because my own Twitter account was suspended for not supplying a mobile phone number. (b) That’s what I said. I said Twitter is not violating 1A (the gov reps are). You could say Twitter undermines free speech /principles/, but not the law.. not 1A.

@koherecoWatchdog Open letters were a thing long before the internet.

@LouisIngenthron Yes but times have changed. The internet is here and getting a letter published in your local newspaper no longer has the impact that it once had.

@koherecoWatchdog "Free speech" doesn't mean you're owed an audience by anyone. Social media is but one avenue of thousands for building an audience.
Anyone, including private property owners, are free to decide that they don't want to listen to or amplify your speech at any time they want. That's their right.

@LouisIngenthron Indeed it’s not about “owing” anything. Yet if you block speech forcefully rather than let it go to the test and get ignored, you are not standing behind the principles of free speech.

@koherecoWatchdog Which is exactly why no company can truly block speech.

All they can do is choose not to host it on their property. As is their right.

Their control only extends as far as their property line. Leave their property, and they have zero control over your speech. Choose to enter their property, and agree to play by their rules.

It's really an elegant system.

@LouisIngenthron You can say property rights trump free speech all you want.. so long as you don’t claim at the same time that free speech principles are in play on a platform where they are not.

@koherecoWatchdog They don't "trump" free speech.

Your rights can be voluntarily waived. When you sign the TOS and visit a social media site, you voluntarily agree to some limits on your speech while you remain on that platform's property.
That's a choice the user makes, in order to access the benefits of the service.
As long as everyone is free to make that choice for themselves, I have zero problems with it.

@LouisIngenthron Sure, they have their legal ducks in a line. No one is saying a free-speech hostile platform is breaking any laws or contracts. Just that a free-speech hostile platform is not conducive to free speech principles.

@koherecoWatchdog See there? I said nothing about law.
I agree with that system on a philosophical sense, because it's all based on free choice.

@LouisIngenthron You would not have had to mention private property rights had there not been a conflict w/free speech principles. There is a conflict with free speech /principles/ (just not with US 1A which is a reduced implementation of that whole philosophical embodiment of ideas).

@koherecoWatchdog Of course. Rights have to be balanced. Free speech principles, taken absolutely, also conflict with civil rights.

I have to have a right to be able to shut you up on my property and get some peace if I want to. That's freedom of association, which is a free speech principle.

You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to force anyone to listen.

@LouisIngenthron Sure there’s a balance, but your claim that property rights does not trump free speech is off. Property rights trumps free speech rights. i cannot enter your home and stick a flyer on your fridge.

@koherecoWatchdog gotta have their phone* office watev. ideally their cel ha!