3 ms·
It doesn't look good for an article on political censorship when its main example is a tweet literally advocating violence ("run them down"). I don't see any ev
by maldusiecle 10y ago
It doesn't look good for an article on political censorship when its main example is a tweet literally advocating violence ("run them down"). I don't see any evidence (in the article, or elsewhere) that Twitter's "censorship problem" is a bigger problem than the notorious amount of abuse on the platform (for example, the recent Leslie Jones incident).
- hga 10y agoViolence in response to violence. As explicitly stated in the article: One example of this was journalist Glenn Reynolds getting his account suspended for tweeting "run them down" in reference to drivers being in a situation where protesters were blocking the streets and attacking cars which stopped. Unless you're a pacifist, or otherwise opposed to self-defense, it's not objectionable, certainly not to the level of suspending someone's account, and only letting them return after deleting their own comment in Communist self-criticism style. And censoring the relatively moderate but incredibly high profile Instapundit was an unbelievably stupid move, it might very well mark the tipping point after which saving Twitter became impossible. Along with the continuing purges of "conservatives" (Glenn's a libertarian, actually), as the article says, Twitter has become an explicitly political platform, and in a US presidential election season (note also the shadow bans and one deletion of Trump's ~34 tweets on simple voter registration), and that's pure poison for the types of bidders it was soliciting.