This is political writing. How would you feel if suddenly you couldn’t read NYT or whatever you read for opinion pieces because the authors there ban you?
Should writers which acquire influence “refuse service” because of … of what?
This is a strawman argument. In the case of the New York Times, I am a subscriber, so we have a commercial relationship. The NYT also has many writers. If I were blocked by David Brooks or Thomas Friedman because I pointed out what pin-heads they are, this would not seem unfair. If I got blocked en masse by all of the NYT writers then some self-reflection might be in order.
Holly Wood is not your bitch. I hesitate to speak for her, but my guess is that she writes for herself and not for you. If she’s like me, she’s not here to provide you service.
I enjoyed Holly’s writing, even when I disagreed (like her flaming attacks on the boomers — just too close to home, I suppose). But I also understand that she might not have shared my belief in the brilliance of my posts and decided to block me.
I have a pretty hard core view about privacy, who we read and who we associate with on-line. This is reflected in the architecture of nderground, where there is no leakage of friend-of-friend information. You get to read and associate with who ever you want.