I do not have any problems with Twitter's actions in the New Yorker article. I don't find "slippery slope" arguments persuasive when there is real harassment be

I do not have any problems with Twitter's actions in the New Yorker article. I don't find "slippery slope" arguments persuasive when there is real harassment being committed right now. I don't think the wikipedia link is relevant to this conversation; it seems to be about state censorship. The "Controversy" section as it's written now is obviously not NPOV and cites no sources.