An added consideration when furthering a conversation about the roles/goals of social media, intended as a means, is to address its ultimate, but maybe not desired, 'end:' Placing everyone back onto the same 'island,' and thereby, abolishing what once was given primacy - Privacy. Within such a conversation, one needs to apply both the hermeneutic of suspicion and the hermeneutic of retrieval.
"However, that’s a matter for United States law." No it isn't; US sovereignty stops at the 12 mile limit. You might want to be cravenly submissive to the subverting of your nation, however I don't think you'll find very many agreeing with you.
Someone has brought to my attention the possibility that this is in fact designed to silence social dissidents, rather than to facilitate civil disagreement: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/12/asia/cancel-culture-law-singapore-intl-hnk/index.html
An added consideration when furthering a conversation about the roles/goals of social media, intended as a means, is to address its ultimate, but maybe not desired, 'end:' Placing everyone back onto the same 'island,' and thereby, abolishing what once was given primacy - Privacy. Within such a conversation, one needs to apply both the hermeneutic of suspicion and the hermeneutic of retrieval.
Perhaps we could make cancellation attempts costly by crowd funding an public archive of names and tweets.
"However, that’s a matter for United States law." No it isn't; US sovereignty stops at the 12 mile limit. You might want to be cravenly submissive to the subverting of your nation, however I don't think you'll find very many agreeing with you.