> I actually think that, for technology companies, more people will choose providers that are completely non-political. There's no way for a tech company to be

> I actually think that, for technology companies, more people will choose providers that are completely non-political. There's no way for a tech company to be "completely non-political." So I actually think that people will continue to prefer providers whose politics they see as compatible with theirs. And it seems to me that tech companies like Google and Microsoft and Apple (in their public pushback against government surveillance) and AirBnB (bringing in Eric Holder to do a non-discrimination policy) see things similarly. Specifically when it comes to harassment and hate speech, while I certainly agree with his points of making it easier for people to protect themselves, in the end there's no way to avoid taking a political stance. Twitter (like Facebook and most other large social networks) has a policy that "you may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease". Obviously that's an inherently political position. But conversely, not having a policy like that -- saying that attacking, threatening, and promoting violence against people based on these characteristics is okay and it's up to them to use the tools to insulate themselves from it -- is just as political. There really isn't a neutral position. [Of course this is the same guy who doesn't see that a decision to let Curtis Yarvin speak at his conference is just as political as a decision not to. To be clear, I'm not saying it was a right or wrong decision; I'm just saying it was political either way.]