The title, even if faithful to the original, is misleading. As the post states, he doesn't know and it is not clear why. He does take the liberty of guessing:

The title, even if faithful to the original, is misleading. As the post states, he doesn't know and it is not clear why. He does take the liberty of guessing: > I can also see how my tweet might have triggered a very, very naive rule that saw “gender,” “STEM,” and “natural” in close proximity, or interpreted the text on the screenshot (which now shows up as a grey box) as denigrating women as a class, when the substance of the message was doing the opposite. > any system that (apparently) flags feminist academic research about the social construction of scientific privilege as being abusive of women as a class An interesting guess. However, the text on the screenshot contains facts. That the author feels the need to specify the facts are "doing the opposite [of denigrating women as a class]" as something of note, rather than just worry that facts are being policed, just smells bad. Were they the wrong facts, would it be ok to ban? Furthermore, the ban has been lifted: https://boingboing.net/2018/09/29/platform-censorship.html https://boingboing.net/2018/09/29/platform-censorship.html