Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, sadly, it would appear that those are the values of Facebook and Twitter. Insofar as an institution like a corporation can be

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, sadly, it would appear that those are the values of Facebook and Twitter. Insofar as an institution like a corporation can be said to possess "values" anyway... But let's just assume we both dislike the editorial policies of Twitter. A pretty safe assumption, I think :) Will spamming Twitter via a network of TLS proxies do anything to change their editorial policy to something more preferable to you or I? Will setting up a network of TLS proxies to Signal give Iranians access to Signal? Perhaps the answer to those two questions will give some indication as to what the practical (and moral) differences are. For my two pence. I think anyone should be allowed to use a phone for any purpose, and I accept that a tap-proof phone can be used to commit crimes. I don't think Osama Bin Laden should be able to take out a page in the new york times to give his hot take on his "hugely successful" WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these examples map directly to the point in hand, but I am just pointing out that they are different media and the balance between freedom of speech and public decency are struck differently and that tactics for finding political solutions to censorship in each case might look different, too.