Not just that, there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants.
The people who decry changes like being able to restrict who can reply to you as "eroding discussion" don't seem to realise that what they're actually saying is "either you commit to listening to/engaging with random total strangers yelling whatever they want at you or you shouldn't say anything at all". In my opinion that silently stifles far more speech than the alternative.
>there are plenty of debates and discussions that don't need every single one of the billions of people on this planet as potential participants.
But WHO decides that? It is just like here on Hacker News, you cannot down vote until you have 500 upvotes? I may have a new novel idea or frame of reference that could benefit the world but I get downvoted on everything I say it never gets out.
So who decides? The one's in control of the platform. And that is horrible. Look at the trouble the woman who invented the mRNA vaccine went through!
