NO New Accounts in American Social Media Until the Election Is Over

[ancianita]

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 11:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Let social media run on current operating expenses for the next 90+ days.

Not by government decree, but by CEO's cooperation with the FBI in lessening new threats to the 2018 election.

That way, the only hacks FBI and intel agencies have to detect and stop are attacks from domestic hackers, trolls and bots, as tech teams continue to ferret out those bad players.

Granted, it still won't be easy, but there will be fewer fake accounts for the FBI and social media tech teams to wade through.

From the business perspective, social media lost money on their brands since the intel revelations of 2016, but this good will gesture can be a way to rebuild them.

From a national security perspective, a 90-day moratorium on new accounts from America's social media is a worthy, necessary, temporary sacrifice that these companies and their shareholders can make for the sake of democratic election integrity.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. A court would overturn that in ten minutes

[ancianita]

5. Why. Social media is for profit business, and this decision concerns national security.

You're giving no explanation here, so I assume you're just tossing an obstacle out for the sake of argument.

So I'll ask you:

What makes you think private enterprise is subject to injunction simply because of a market complaint.

Who would be the plaintiffs.

What makes you think this couldn't be a PR rollout on a decision that the electorate would support.

And certainly the relevant governmental agencies.

[fescuerescue]

20. 1st amendment

probably prior restraint as well.

And profit is not incompatible with speech, legally speaking.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Ummmm. No.

The first amendment applies to state action, not private action. Here the suggestion was for private entities to agree not to create new accounts. No government action. "Not by government decree, but by CEO's cooperation with the FBI in lessening new threats to the 2018 election."

Prior restraint applies to mandatory government review and approval of content before it is published. Here, the suggestion is no new accounts - no suggestion at all was made as to content - and, as discussed above, this is a private action, not government.

[fescuerescue]

62. Why would their be criminal court action

if it's voluntary? See i understood this suggestion to be government mandated.

Yea I fully understand state vs private action. No need for the lecture.

If all social media companies decide to do this voluntarily, you are correct, it's not a constitutional issue.

Now shareholder suits? Good luck with that.

[Ms. Toad]

68. I didn't say anything about criminal action.

I responded to your suggestion that the proposal would create first amendment and prior restraint problems, which is impossible because the OP was clearly proposing private action:

Not by government decree, but by CEO's cooperation with the FBI in lessening new threats to the 2018 election.

[fescuerescue]

72. Ya I guess I missed that line in the OP

That makes a big difference.

But I just don't see CEO's doing that. First because it would be admitting that they plan a part of election influencing, second because no public company can throw away new revenue for 90 days. The shareholders would eat them alive.

[Ms. Toad]

78. I agree with you on that.

It just drives me nuts when people (appear to) believe that the first amendment applies to private interference with speech. Glad to know that you don't.

[msongs]

2. including DU? nt

[ancianita]

6. DU isn't social media. DU is an Internet discussion forum.

[fescuerescue]

21. distinction without a difference

Since neither term is a legal definition.

[ancianita]

30. That you say that says more about your "no difference" understanding than social media reality.

Reddit, the third largest website on the Internet, does not include itself as part of the social media world.

Social media and site discussion forums are hugely different in mission, terms and speed of interactions.

[fescuerescue]

58. I don't really care how reddit markets itself.

it is what it is.

[ancianita]

60. Then you really don't care about the distinction-without-a-difference that websites themselves make.

Reddit doesn't market anything.

It is what IT says it is.

[fescuerescue]

64. I'm not going to explain marketing to you.

But if Reddit is claiming ANYTHING. Yes that is marketing.

In any event, none of this matters because it's all fantasy.

[ancianita]

53. I have attempted a definition of difference and you haven't.

[fescuerescue]

59. I see.

Well good luck.

[brooklynite]

51. Give us a legally defensible definition of "social media"

[ancianita]

55. What the... who is "us"? This is a general discussion forum, so perhaps you could go first, since

I'm no lawyer, and can't see the relevance of your comment.

[mythology]

73. You're the one making the absurd suggestion

It's incumbent upon you to justify it.

[Iggo]

74. DU is absolutely social media.

Social media in the form of an internet discussion board.

[ancianita]

77. All due respect, "in the form ... internet discussion board" does not a social media entity make.

DU is like most Internet forums. who call themselves by that name, and don't call themselves social media -- reddit, something awful, etc.

Social media don't contain either discussion boards or forums. They contain threads.

By analogy, both have social genes and media genes, but the animals those genes make are different species.

DU?
narrowly, technically media,
media as in news aggregator;
narrowly, technically social;
social as in one-party political community.

DU can in the broadest sense, do what social media do, -- real time message pace, world reach and broader topic range -- in the sense that one species can do some of the things another species does. But neither can sustain what the other does.

All animals are species, not all species are animal.

If you want the narrow rightness of defining DU as social media, but call it by its right name.

[marybourg]

3. Under what law?

Martial?

[ancianita]

7. What the...? Do you really think these are governmental agencies? They're businesses.

[marybourg]

39. And laws don't apply to businesses?

Sometimes I’m astonished.

[ancianita]

40. Explain how current efforts to stop social media attacks are governed by law, then understand that

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 11:26 PM - Edit history (2)

this proposal is not in any way an extension of that. The only question government has is about how these businesses allow bots, trolls and divisive attacks within democratic social media communications.

You do see how Congress expects businesses to actually do due diligence to avoid Internet attacks across a range of exploitations, I assume. Which is why there are laws for money laundering, conflict of interest, sanctions, etc.

"Martial law"? That's a pretty extreme way to understand how social media would further help protect Internet attacks on their users. How about voluntary due diligence oversight to prevent hostile foreign power hacking, trolling and divisive bot campaigns. You do understand how their past oversight re their users' problems has cost them billions already, right?

[marybourg]

42. Businesses are not going to violate their primary obligation,

which is to their shareholders, and turn away business. To do so would definitely cause shareholder lawsuits, which they would lose. To get together and form a pact to turn away business would violate anti-trust laws. Spontaneous unanimity is not going to happen and coercion is against the law. I suppose ther’s always the possibility of nationalization. We’re too complex a society for simplistic solutions.

[ancianita]

57. It's a civic, security-motivated decision. Profit shouldn't rule a fair & free election process.

Businesses are not going to violate their primary obligation...to their shareholders, and turn away business.

The country has already seen that shareholders have already walked despite the high profitability they enjoyed, so your claim is out the window.

I don't agree that companies should promote a "profit uber alles" attitude toward a government and country that has made them as profitable as they already are.

Spontaneous unanimity is not going to happen and coercion is against the law.

Who said there would be spontaneous unanimity.
Who said anywhere here that there's coercion.

To do so would definitely cause shareholder lawsuits

No new accounts for 90 days is a voluntary board decision and would cause nothing of the kind. It would just as easily create more investors, responsive to the corporate message of civic help to keep its home country's elections stable, free and fair. Capitalism exists because of the stability of governing nations.
In the interests of that stability, lawsuits would be seen as undermining a good PR move.

Don't get carried away. No one's proposing that this government even get involved. Just that social media help, you know, as good citizens.

[marybourg]

69. Well, why don't you write each of them a letter?

Maybe they'll agree with you.

[ancianita]

81. I've contacted them, thanks. What they do going forward, we'll see.

[manor321]

4. No

Twitter is a tremendous and timely source of news for me.

[ancianita]

8. I didn't say shut you down, I said shut down taking in any new accounts.

[ancianita]

9. I just fixed the unclear OP title, folks! Thank you all for the clarifying questions.

[Control-Z]

43. And I was just about to make a snotty remark about

how many people in this thread "obviously" hadn't botherd reading your entire post. Lol. I'm guessing it didn't originally read as it does now? It was perfectly clear to me and a great idea, in my opinion. Most of the above comments were already addressed in your OP when I read it.

[ancianita]

45. Thank you. Appreciate that you understood the spirit of the idea. I only changed two words in the OP

[bearsfootball516]

10. Good luck with that.

[ancianita]

11. It's not up to me. It's an idea. Thanks for your input.

[fescuerescue]

22. Who is proposing this?

Just curious since I've only read about this idea here.

[ancianita]

41. I am proposing this. Its acceptance is scant here. I'm disappointed. To me it's a good idea.

My reason for proposing this is:

The massiveness of Internet intrusion by Russia, and how some other major players besides our Homeland Security agencies can help stop it, seem not to be a big deal around here.

No, you haven't seen this idea anywhere else. I haven't seen it floated on the nets, either.

But that doesn't make it an out-of-the-question bad idea.

[underthematrix]

12. I closed my Facebook account several months ago.

I also closed my Tumblr and Flickr accounts and only use email for a very very narrow purpose. I send 4 emails a year. Seriously just three. I never use my gmail account. I have a YouTube account but I'm going to start logging off whenever I'm not using it which is most of the time.

I use Twitter and I'm very careful when it comes to tweeting and retweeting. I follow about 20 handles.

I think it would be good to do a LOGOUT protest during the month of October. Logging out is very important because from an advertisers perspective when we are logged on to their site, they gathering information about what we're looking at and why.

Logging out every time you finish a session will deprive them of this information and make social media sites less attractive during the protest period.

[ancianita]

15. Great.But that posits social media as the threat. What do you think about the OP idea?

A Logout Protest sounds like a fight to not help social media, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.

I'm trying to promote the idea that social media can protect your use during the runup to November 6 by limiting any disruptive, divisive trolls, bots and hackers.

What do you think.

[underthematrix]

49. Here's the issue with the 90 day no new accounts

New accounts is one of the things that probably makes social media giants like FB and Twitter so lucrative. I don't think this would work because it would affect the bottom line of shareholders and advertisers. Ad dollars keep Facebook free to users,

I don't see social media as a threat. I see users as the biggest threat. What I mean is why won't users simply close their account? Facebook is a business and the interest of shareholders is their bottom line. I don't understand why people won't simply stop using the product given its documented harmfulness to Americans.

[ancianita]

52. The idea isn't to close out valid and constructive accounts. The idea is to prevent new ones to

to lessen threats to democracy in an election period.

Social media is a tool. Like a knife, it's who uses it that makes it constructive or destructive; obviously, doesn't throw it out because a knife can kill. Neither should we close our accounts. I'm proud of how I use my account, and speak toward others and issues the way I would wish to be spoken to.

We know that general media is a threat -- to bad actors -- or this president and his people wouldn't have made media into an "enemy of the people."

Sure, in social media, new accounts mean money. But money isn't everything. Shareholders don't want to be seen as cynical, passive bystanders, which is why Facebook just lost billions of their money, isn't it.

A stable law-and-order democracy enables these businesses to grow, and more honest the business, the more shareholders will buy in. Simply saying we have no interest in whether social media continues to allow corruption will play into the corruption of both private and public sectors, economically, politically and culturally.

Social media CEO's can make a significant difference to help allay the public's distrust in the country's general stability.

[underthematrix]

54. I hear you and I wish that could work. Maybe a slightly different way would be to eliminate

the news feed app for 30 days. And users would be blocked from posting, sharing, liking or commenting on any story deemed news.

[ancianita]

56. How, exactly, do you know it couldn't. No new apps, accounts is the idea that I think could help.

Helping isn't censoring or stopping what's already going on in social media.

I don't want to censor -- by blocking, sharing, liking or commenting -- anyone. At all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "work."

As for myself, I don't mean "work," in the sense of solving all hostile exploitations of participants' civic knowledge or political opinions. That would mean content monitoring in line with your suggestion. That's not free speech.

but there is no reason that a moratorium couldn't "work" in the sense of mitigating even more hostilely invasive attacks that undermine confidence in our trust in others' good faith communications.

[underthematrix]

61. Oh I think your idea is a good one. But let's be honest. This approach says more about

Americans than it says about Facebook's greediness. Knowing what we know about Facebook's role in allowing, promoting and disseminating disinformation, a person like me wonders why Americans haven't simply closed their accounts.

Your strategy focuses on Facebook because Americans lack a moral compass to take responsibility for what they consume.

I liked being able to share photos with my family, most of whom lives in another state. But when I found out what Facebook had done and was still doing, I told my family that as much as I'd miss our closed group, I was closing my account because I couldn't consume a product that had done so much harm to our democracy and our civil society.

Because of who we are, I think a strategy that targets the product instead of the consumer is probably the best plan.

I think your idea is worth a try but I would reduce it to 30 days instead of 90.

[ancianita]

65. Why 30? We need to block hostile foreign intrusions until after election day, wouldn't you agree?

Americans than it says about Facebook's greediness. Knowing what we know about Facebook's role in allowing, promoting and disseminating disinformation, a person like me wonders why Americans haven't simply closed their accounts.

Your strategy focuses on Facebook because Americans lack a moral compass to take responsibility for what they consume.

I don't see Facebook or its users that way. I see that the highest record Wall St. loss of billions by Facebook shows that its users have closed accounts, and its shareholders have walked, removed their money. Greedy Facebook got punished.

Which also shows me that people like you and me are the ones who Facebook's trying to keep now. We're the consumers whose data they want. We should stay, and, as with our country's elections, stick with it to make it live up to its original aspirations. It's done us good to connect with each other throughout this country and the world; it does more good things we like than bad, and if it wants more success, it will continue to shape up for our use, and get better at not allowing entry of foreign bad actors.

I'm hopeful for what has come to be our planetary nervous system.

Americans just have to start learning who their friends and enemies are in order to use it better. What we're learning is what East Europeans, France and Estonia have already been through. The whole internodal system of Estonia is a model we should try.

[underthematrix]

66. Because advertisers, the primary paying consumer

Facebook might be willing to go along with that.

[ancianita]

67. You're saying that national security efforts and profit efforts can't mutually support each other?

Isn't keeping hostile foreign powers from invading our communications and Internet infrastructure in the interests of Internet companies and the country's running electronic systems? And elections?

Sure seems so to me. Guess we'll never know, from the negative opinions I've encountered here.

One of my sons works for Palo Alto Securities, markets firewalls. He says they don't just do it to enhance profitability, but integrity, which attracts investors.

I would think this idea would be a great civic and PR move for social media companies, attract more investors. Then again, there's no real guarantee they'd suffer stagnation during 90 days, either.

Other countries have taken such steps and recovered well enough.

[underthematrix]

86. No. I'm saying they're mutually exclusive. I'm saying that

national security and profit centers have to find that place that works for both.

Of course the best way to achieve America's national security goals is to have a cogent electorate that votes for candidates who have America's national security interests at heart. That means voting for DEMOCRATS only.

[Hoyt]

13. Howsabout not allowing anyone on Social Media too stupid to discern fact from white wing lies.

Seriously, for the most part, the only ones that believe lies and distortions that favor GOPers are people who aren't inclined to vote Democratic anyway.

Democratic organizations need to learn how to respond adequately to negative ads, social media posts, etc. When we see such posts, we need to respond with a well reasoned rebuttal, even if we lose a so-called "friend."

[ancianita]

16. You care about how people use media. I'm talking about a national security proposal.

Yes, for improving people use of social media, you're onto a constructive path.

But for my purposes, I'm just proposing that the social media not allow any new participants for 90 days.

That's it. I'm not sure how your ideas address mine.

[Hoyt]

19. I don't see the purpose of yours, and it's not going to happen.

Plus, most conspirators have thousands of sleeper accounts. You can’t stop it, other than to expose lies.

I get what you are trying to do, but it won’t work. Wish it were that easy.

[ancianita]

44. You don't see how a voluntary, social media CEO decision to call a 90-day moratorium

on new accounts can make FBI and intel agencies' effort to stop hostile Internet attacks on our election easier?

Exactly what is a sleeper account, anyway. If they exist, they're still subject to vetting.

So far, Zuckerberg has shown how hard it is for his in-house people to vet even existing accounts.

As I see it, Post 2016, the charge on those agencies is hard enough, so this social media moratorium could make their work easier this time around.

[Hoyt]

47. No, because just like here at DU, people and organizations have multiple accounts to

escape detection when they decide to start some crap.

People can hijack accounts too.

[ancianita]

50. Then why does DU even bother with MIRT? Most Internet orgs have ways to prevent crap.

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

One would think that disallowing new accounts for 90 days can lessen the likelihood of what you're talking about, so that current accounts can be dealt with more effectively.

You seem to ignore how participant abuse Alerts and Reports work to detect and handle existing crap. And you didn't answer my question about "sleeper accounts," or my idea about how to deal with them in-house.

I'm disheartened by the tone of thread participants here.

I see too much misunderstanding about the proposal, the Internet businesses' relation to government, and just general cynicism about the civic potential of willing and able American companies' efforts to offer security help in our election process.

Just because hijackings happen, or crap happens, doesn't mean we should sit back in passive helplessness.

[Control-Z]

46. How'd that work out on DU

during the 2016 primaries?

[Hoyt]

48. Here, you got rebuttals hidden. Would hope that doesn't happen here again.

[VOX]

14. I'm afraid that'd be a head-on free-speech issue.

Wouldn't work. I share your outrage at the absolutely unflushable toilet that social media has become, but there's no putting that particular genie back into the bottle.

On edit: Apologies for the mixed metaphors.

[ancianita]

17. It's a national security issue, not discrimination or a free speech issue.

For 90 days. No new accounts. Increased social media security. Temporary.

I think the world would applaud the US for it.

[ancianita]

18. It's not about a genie out of the bottle. It shuts down further threat for 90 days.

[fescuerescue]

23. I wonder what other amendments we could shut down for 90 days

I vote for the fifth. That way we can force them to talk.

[ancianita]

24. I'm puzzled as to what you're talking about. I'm talking about social media CEO's helping secure

social media to lessen hacking, trolling and bot threats during the election season.

[Ms. Toad]

32. Private businesses can do what they choose.

The first amendment ony applies to government action.

[Jake Stern]

25. A few things. . . .

1. Guaranteed these troll farms have hundreds, if not thousands, of already established but dormant accounts just waiting to be re-activated.

2. The government would have a very high burden to prove that locking out any new accounts on all social media platforms is the least burdensome way to protect national security.

3. Even if the courts sign off on it what is to stop social media from moving to servers abroad to skirt the law?

You're kidding yourself if you think they don't have backup servers in other countries, just in case. A few proverbial keystrokes and Twitter is now running out of New Zealand and Facebook out of Luxembourg.

[ancianita]

27. Re #2: this government does not run social media. It's not up to this govt. to decide or even approv

You don't seem to realize that social media are businesses, not government regulated utilities.

I can see how existing accounts and servers can still be in play. But not to accept any new accounts diminishes the security work that's ahead for the FBI and intel in upcoming months.

It doesn't matter where all the companies run from. They are American companies and can call a moratorium on all new accounts no matter where they're located. They run their companies and are not governed in those countries, either.

[ladjf]

26. Seems like a good idea. nt

[ancianita]

28. Whew. Thank you. Glad to see someone who can appreciate the national security help CEO's can give.

[Freethinker65]

29. Nope. But how about a prominent date joined notation, highlighted if less than one year?

Reactivation of dormant accounts could also be noted.

[ancianita]

34. DU should be all about national security. This proposal is about national security. Re your ideas:

Dormant account? Easy. They stay dormant, may not be activated, until the election is over. Unless you mean "unused." In which case they need internal reviewing as part of the improved internal investigating by social media tech teams.

Highlighted date of joining? Sure. Why not.

But seriously. What the hell. From responses to this idea, I get that people either don't understand the idea of eliminating new security threats to US communications, or there's too much passive acceptance about responsibility from social media heads. Yet their cooperation can block further attacks and free up their people to deal with attacks from within their existing accounts.

One would think from all the DU outrage over this Russian social media invasion, that any solution proposal would be preferable to the outrage, handwringing and blame-gaming which just makes for an energy sink hole.

Though I simply don't understand most of the responses in this thread, I do understand and appreciate yours, which seem more to the point of enhancing social media participants' awareness, so thanks for your input.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. LOL.

[J_William_Ryan]

35. As long as there's no government involvement, there are no First Amendment issues.

The problem will be comprehensive compliance.

[ancianita]

37. The problem: national security threats. There's no compliance, only good faith voluntary CEO help.

Compliance requires an order.

This is simply a proposal that the FBI and intel agencies can offer social media companies to ask for them to act out of civic concern for protecting country against democratic election spying, divisive activity or outright attacks.

Obviously, they're free to refuse, but the implications of that are fairly clear. Zuckerberg himself has shown an evolved effort due to public outrage over his company's careless vetting of accounts.

One would think other social media companies would already be ahead of that awareness curve and actively help out in maintaining a secure system for their businesses.

[fescuerescue]

63. Shareholder suits

would be the problem.

A publicly traded company turning down new revenue for a quarter.

woo boy.

[SkyDancer]

36. This is literally fascism

and as such, I can not support it.

[ancianita]

38. You need to explain, otherwise I say you're beyond wrong, since it's not directed by government.

Explain.

[SkyDancer]

70. The FBI is the government

Literally.

[ancianita]

76. Understood. So there's a mutual interest, not oppositional one, in securing communications.

[phleshdef]

71. Literally no one is going to go along with such a stupid idea.

[HipChick]

75. Exactly....99.9% of social media is global anyway...

Lots of these companies actually have data centers in Russia itself due to overseas data requirements..

[Blue_Adept]

79. You realize that politics isn't the sum total of social media?

So you're denying people coming onto places with new accounts (ostensibly younger folks since they're "growing into" social media) because... politics? Yeah, that'll keep them interested in the whole process when they can't sign onto instagram, snapchat, etc.

Because politics.

Hell, I can use social media all day long and not encounter politics in my field.

If all you follow is politics then that's all you'll see.

It's an absurd idea that I'd expect out of Free Republic than here.

[ancianita]

80. Of course. National security OF politics is the focus of the OP. This isn't about denying people

anything but a waiting period for something they never had for the ten years of social media's existence anyway.

You realize that unsecured continuation of what we have already politically experienced through social media will lead to more of the same outcomes?

Do you keep up with the news on the wide ramifications of the Russia investigation? Do you really think your all day experience is the standard for what goes on in social media? Mine isn't. No one's is.

So now I'm supposed to see how people analyze a good faith attempt at alleviating more threat from new accounts -- only until the election is over -- as absurd, stupid, fascist and freeper behavior.

Thirteen DU recommenders and three thread posters disagree with you.

Anything constructive for the OP? There are ways to better secure social media, and none of the disparaging comments here offers a better answer for the Russian invasions of social media -- just the politics of impossibility.

Know what I do around here when I think an idea is bad? First I research it, terms, feasibility, logic, etc. Then if I still think it's bad I say nothing. I even recommend a few because they at least deserve fair and supportive input and exposure.

[Blue_Adept]

87. Wow, that's some pretty incredible condescension coming from you there

A whole lot of propping up of yourself as well.

But no, I have nothing to say to your OP because it won't even be a blip in the grand scheme of things related to the events of this year. It's a nice little fantasy play to poke and prod at, if you can find someone willing since most here realize that it's not even worth that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. Um, yeah, that's not going to happen. First Amendment and all.

Sorry.

[ancianita]

83. Um, yeah No. No one is entitled to join social media. It is not a tax supported public utility.

It's a private sandbox not public domain.

Lots of stuff gets hidden, probated, banned.

Not a constitutional right.

Terms and conditions and all.

Don't be sorry. Just understand the standing of social media participants, that's all.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

84. If the government (FBI in your hypo) steps in and tells social media folks not to allow new accounts

It is effectively the government barring citizens from an avenue of speech (whether it be about politics, sports, or cat videos).

I understand the problem with certain consequences from social media is a tough nut to crack. But this wouldn't stand up in the court for a millisecond.

[ancianita]

85. You may not conclude that I want govt. barring citizens. I SAID such a moratorium is voluntarily

voluntarily undertaken by the private sector to help promote the national interests of lessening outside threats through social media to national security and the election. It's not coercion, governmental intrusion or anything else.

(Jeez, I'm a Marxist and even I realize that private CEO's can collectively act in the national interests of keeping Russian and other hackers out.

It's one reason one of my sons markets firewalls out of Palo Alto Securities, and the other owns an IT business that's getting a small town wired.)

That's it. If anyone read my proposal correctly, they would understand than I know it's not democratic for the FBI to tell anyone how to run their communications business, or to do anything but assess and block Internets threats.

However, a business's voluntary moratorium on new accounts is perfectly legal.

No onewould have legal standing to demand inclusion in social media participation -- social media are not public domain platforms -- given current national security conditions and privatized terms and conditions for any length of time.

No one -- FBI or consumers -- can tell Zuckerberg, et. al., how to run their platforms. Including whether or not they can even use them. Again, terms and conditions. You cannot coerce a business to do business with you if they have safety and security concerns.

Even once people are accepted as participants, social media are not their public domain platform and they may not demand any alleged 1A rights to say whatever and use it however, if the platform owners see fit to create new terms and conditions.

You and others here too easily conflate consumer wants with consumer rights. Too many are too conflict-driven here.

You thereby miss the point of my proposal.