I think those that are focusing on the "Twitter-Women" issue are missing the point. The argument is that if Twitter is more diverse, it may have noticed the ab

I think those that are focusing on the "Twitter-Women" issue are missing the point. The argument is that if Twitter is more diverse, it may have noticed the abuse problem earlier on (lets ignore the fact that Twitter could have failed for a million reasons if one of the early founders were replaced). The core takeaway is the guys who fantasized about building the perfect communication platform that ended up as Twitter missed out a pretty major flaw in the service due to lack of experience. In other words, there is no "objectively pure free speech" platform without its own host of political problems. Turning this to Bitcoin - the author is arguing utopian principles Bitcoin was founded on (or atleast the utopian principles the fueled the hype machine) pretty much offered the same objectively pure value transmission network, and we are finding today that those principles are now being challenged politically. Meaning, humans can't seem to build a payment system that won't go to shit when the community of 3 or 4 centralized decision makers can't come to agreement. Depending on where Bitcoin ends up, you might have early adopters feeling screwed because they wanted a payment system faster than ACH, or adopters in developing countries screwed because the 2MB block size is prohibitive. The connection between these two events are even though, as another commenter put it "inert objects care not about social issues.", at a large enough scale, these "inert objects" become tools for political change and strife despite how hard we like to cling to things like "free speech" and "rule by math".