> In other words, you're saying no one should have input on it? There should be no rules at all? I don't think any political organizations should have input. T

> In other words, you're saying no one should have input on it? There should be no rules at all? I don't think any political organizations should have input. There are rules though, they're the local laws of Twitter's users. If a user posts illegal content then Twitter is obligated to take it down. The potential beauty of Twitter is that you could in theory see the full scope of an argument, good, bad and ugly. What we have instead is a platform where people with controversial ideas can leverage agreement from within Twitter to censor opponents. > I would support adding civil libertarian organizations to the mix of advisors, as a sibling comment mentions, for a variety of reasons. One reason is similar to why we have an adversarial system in law - if most people support an idea, such as free speech, in principle, but nobody is really dedicated to defending it and the easiest way to accomplish other goals is to compromise it, the slippery slope can easily become steep without people really noticing. Another is just that it's easy for these issues to be overpoliticized, especially when you have a physical presence in Silicon Valley. You hit the nail on the head with this. > But all that said, there must be rules. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. Twitter must still adhere to at least US law. It seems like a good idea to not try to duplicate the legal system (minus checks and balances) internally.