Or maybe you're misinformed about his free speech claims. He clearly stated that free speech applied to Twitter means that in the case of a grey zone, it's pre

Or maybe you're misinformed about his free speech claims. He clearly stated that free speech applied to Twitter means that in the case of a grey zone, it's preferential not to censor. Which is not the same as an absolute take on free speech. People are running with a claim that was never made. As for doxxing, I find it disturbing how a technicality is used to defend information that is clearly threatening. Recently, in the Netherlands extremists have been digging up the addresses of some politicians they dislike and publishing them on Twitter. It destroys their lives and basic sense of safety. Technically, the addresses were public. Do you really see that as a sane justification to collect said data, actively publish it to an extreme audience with the very obvious intent of intimidation, and directly increase the odds of just one nutjob to do untold damage? It's fine because the data was "public"?