Before any ‘debate’ about the “33% Facebook” part of my original post gets out of hand please bear in mind that my intent was only to try to jokily illustrate the unhealthy extent to which FB dominates and influences people’s lives and behaviours. Of course it’s a stupid suggestion and I knew it when I made it.
I responded, to what looked like comments treating it as a semi-serious idea, by trying to address serious concern about the ways voting rights and opportunities can be manipulated. I wonder if it is possible to have any eligibility criteria that cannot be manipulated thus. The topic of agreeing equitable and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria is an issue, for sure. Selectively enforcing or otherwise manipulating voting entitlements whatever they are is surely a larger issue.
Hopefully this minor detour, whilst linked to the question of platform dominance in people’s lives, can draw to a close (or move to a separate topic) and the thread can focus more on the topic of free speech and platform dominance. Although perhaps not - is a right to vote a free speech issue and if so is platform dominance healthy?
(Damn, that last question seems to have brought me back to similar thoughts to those originally inspired by the Gracchus post - noting concern re the affect FB has on fellow citizens/voters, even if many of us here appear to be exceptions from the billions who use only FB to get their news - that I first responded to.)
ETA, upon reading this back, that agreeing the extent of the right to vote and who gets it is of course a critical issue. The recent celebrations of the anniversary of women’s suffrage in UK reminded us of that. The point I was trying to make is that who is entitled to vote ought to be clear whether or not we agree with its extent or want to amend it (e.g. the whole women’s suffrage movement at the time; more recent debates about whether incarcerated prisoners ought to retain the right; etc) whilst the shenanigans that go on behind and around the scenes to somehow target and disenfranchise some subset of those who the rules clearly state ought to be able to vote (selective enforcement) is perhaps a ‘bigger’ issue because it is not usually out in the open and is harder to defend against.
I wish these worms would stop wriggling over the edge of the can. 
