> Twitter is simultaneously a public sphere where politicians are prohibited from blocking users
I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either.
The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.
Sure, but you'll have a hard time convincing people that is an effective alternative. How many people do you know who visit the official website of the White House to read press releases and memos? Does the average person know that the president used to give a weekly radio address? The medium of the message is just as important as the message itself.
I also believe AOC would be a nobody if she didn't have a Twitter account. She'd be the same as the other 435 Representatives who release statements on their house.gov website that no one realizes exists.
Edit:
>"I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts."
Okay. The whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I don't particularly think that being a "private company" on the size and scale of Twitter justifies their ability to censor the president.
I do not know what public sphere means, but I doubt Twitter stops specific accounts from blocking other accounts. I do not see why that is relevant either.
The president of the United States, of all people, has the capability to put an RSS feed on Whitehouse.gov or the president’s personal website anytime they want.