HotdogVision

Why are you talking about a universal right to access Twitter? AFAIK, no one here endorses that.

b/c it’s a private company that excludes people (e.g. people without mobile phones).

Poor comparison on my part. But it seems your sense of what is a right or not depends on whether it is accessible for all (which Lemmy/Mastodon/Bluesky isn’t either as like you mentioned not everyone might have a phone or computer), whereas I argue that this only matters if it is the sole means of communication used by said politician.

I’ve had a twitter account for years with little more than an email address, so not sure if this is a country-specific barrier or my account was grandfathered in. I only use it to lurk as the platform is still useful to obtain information related to my job, but never tweeted.

Either you lick Musk’s boots or you bounce. Those are your choices. Politicians who lick Musk’s boots and drive exclusion cannot effectively represent the people.

If these politicians have been voted in by the people then I see no problem here democratically. The people presumably will find out in time who they really voted for and hopefully learn from it.

Those are different times. We are in Twitter times.

I’d argue that because every tweet is just another voice in the void and there is little filtering of opinions, Twitter is likely less effective than shouting on a street corner for the everyday man to get his opinion across. The sheer prevalence of bots distorts this even more. Also if platform size is the criterium here then Lemmy and Mastodon are still terrible substitutes to Reddit or Twitter in terms of reach.

People don’t have a right to use Twitter.

I have a right to use twitter to the same extent as you have a right to use lemmy. Others not having a phone/computer should not infringe on my right to use existing technology, services or software.

The right to choose to use twitter is markedly different from making it a universal right to be able to access twitter.

It’s also insufficient that I can reach them outside twitter only by non-microblogging means.

Public protest existed for centuries prior to Twitter, and it’s not as if the only choices are Twitter or private letter. There are many other channels of communication around, some of which public.

As long as I have to pay €7 for a bottle of water at Geneva Airport as a tourist despite me not earning a Swiss wage, I find it hard to feel sorry for a country that prides itself on its luxury.

I’d agree with compelling politicians to change platform only in the case you outline above, where said politician (assuming they are democratically elected) is unreachable through other means of communication. Else I think everyone is free to make their own decision as to what platform/soapbox they want to use, just as much as I have the right to not use that platform.