http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156377 416856/should-twitter-an

B-bump...

This is retarded by the end of the first paragraph

No, because unlike utilities, you can actually comfortably live without Facebook and Twitter, and the are other mediums of communication.

>calls himself a master persuader
>outs himself as a blithering cretin in the first paragraph
really impels you to cogitate

People willingly give up their info in exchange for the service.
As long as no one is forced there isn't any problems.
You can't pass a law to make people less stupid.

>>58682295
>>58680463
Why are weaboos so retarded?

File: 1472399764949.jpg (105KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x720px

>>58682554
>You can't pass a law to make people less stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

>>58680463
>or is federation the answer?
This. Government regulation is just trading one dictator for another. What is required is a system with no central authority with the ability to censor.

>>58682616
>hurr the state needs to implement eugenics
>implying the state won't weed out the more intelligent breeds in order to have a more controllable population
The free market is the best eugenic system.

>>58680463
>Should/Is/Did ________ do _______ !?
Answer is always no.

File: 1456590404489.jpg (51KB, 600x215px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x215px

>>58680463
Jesus Christ

>Waaaahhh Twitter shadowbanned me
>Shouldn't the government step in and unban me???

This guy is a fucking hack anyway, /co/ was right

>>58680463
Aren't Republicans all for big business? Or are they only for it when it doesn't hurt them directly?

File: 1461406544389.jpg (37KB, 381x380px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 381x380px

>>58682598

>>58682693
No, Scott Adams is just a retard

>>58680463
someone should tell him to just join Gab. that's still a thing right?

>>58680463
No.

Scott Adams is a legendary edge machine. He's one step removed from Terry Davis levels of mental health. The real issue here, of course, is that free speech has been made freer than ever, and now there's a chance that private enterprises could curtail that since they own it and have the right to do so. Personally, this could all be fixed with an open-source social media site that anyone can use or copy. But if such a place existed, would people go there? If not, would there be a point in having it?

Of course, madmen can stand on street corners and yell that the end is nigh. It sounds like Scott Adams is more annoyed that when he does that, nobody listens. He implies, with his whole "media personality" shit, that he's addicted to the attention he receives, not to making his point.

>>58680463
>Should something subjective be held to even more subjective standards?

>>58683917
Diaspora's been around for ages. The fact you've never heard of it answers your first question.