it's the town square- it's not about the two people talking but for everyone reading what they said instead of controlling the narrative by only speaking to people you want in places you want. They don't even have to answer to everyone, so the only benefit of losing access to thousands/millions of people is to make an article like this for Pride.
I just mean that in the way that this site is a town square, or all of the rfc's, in that anyone can (for free) see all of the discussions and participate. Just like a town square, not every comment has to be addressed or promoted equally, but I don't know of a better way to release information and allow for anyone to discuss it with others.
I'm not really sure I see your point, then. An organisation like the FSF is going to be pretty resource-strapped, so it makes sense that they're selective about where to maintain a public presence. Why should they stay on Twitter when it's highly dubious that they're getting any value from it or vice versa?
