Fundraging

We must destroy the First Amendment in order to save my aggrieved, legally illiterate, ahistorical interpretation of it.https://t.co/LXClm1InWP

— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) May 5, 2021

I know I’ve asked it before, but how do you “break up” Facebook or Twitter?  Require they limit access to a set number of U.S.users?  Whoops, that’s what they’re doing already.  Or is it better when government does it, rather than when Twitter does it?

Yes, if the government were doing it, that would be more Orwellian. https://t.co/BuWfMkgdbg

— The First Amendment (@USConst_Amend_I) May 5, 2021

Yeah, getting the government to do it is certainly "Orwellian."  Besides, if you could “break up” Twitter or Facebook (still don’t know how that’s done, but arguendo), would everyone flock to Parler?  Frank (no, not your friend; Lindell’s platform)?  Facebook squeezed out MySpace because people wanted to be on a common platform, rather than moving back and forth from one to another to another. 

My rough understanding is that Facebook is mostly the home of Grandma and right wing cranks not on Parler.  Twitter is occupied by “professionals” (Journalists, pundits, corporations, etc.).  Instagram (or is it Snapchat?) is the domain of the “youte,” although I think the further away you go from Facebook and Twitter, the more fractured the audience.  I haven’t  even gotten to TikTok yet.

Which ones do you break up, and why?  And how?  Force us all back onto MySpace?  Off social media altogether?  The more you think about it, the more Orwellian it gets.

For example, this proposal would be more Orwellian. https://t.co/yHv55mkkQQ

— The First Amendment (@USConst_Amend_I) May 5, 2021

And how will a House Majority do that?  Doesn’t matter.  Send money now.

It’s all about the Benjamins, bay-bee.  Which is where it really gets Orwellian.