We don’t need government to censor Al-Quaida or Aryan Brotherhood recruiting, or the mountain of abuse that a bully will apply to a 4-grade target, but I’ll censor them myself if they show up in my house or my kid’s school. Will you struggle to defend their wide spread?
But I think we agree, let society handle the taboos and morals, not government. Though that means outright falsehoods might have standing as protected speech. Hope we’re not saying libel is protected?
spending such a large article talking about one single exception is a waste of breath. trying to divine all the tea leaves based on one example: just dont do it.
a lot bigger contexts could have been set & made here.
This paragraph in the article is particularly noteworthy for those who care about Big Tech and the constant elite calls for censorship from the corporate journalists and establishment figures including politicians:
People will focus on the fact that it was bad bad Donald Trump who got elected that year, but that was really incidental. The real problem Trump represented for elite America had less to do with his political beliefs than the unapproved manner of his rise. Twitter, seen as a co-conspirator in this evil, became a target of establishment reprisal after Trump’s win.
I don’t know about that. He came off as a freaking idiot who spent most of his time playing golf and tossing insults. Facing off against Hillsry Clinton was an ugly pageant with no possible winner for the country.
He had some useful insights, we’d have some benefit from him being in the building if not at the table. I agree there was derangement at him, but he’s also just objectionable in a setting that needs that type of objectionable to be elsewhere.
Isn't it already?