> I think there could be a balance here, allow that which is legal but distasteful but don't promote it or advertise beside it OK, but then it's more like blac

> I think there could be a balance here, allow that which is legal but distasteful but don't promote it or advertise beside it OK, but then it's more like blacklisting rather than banning. You're still free to show up and participate, you just can't get access to the biggest audiences. So then the conversation turns from "why is Twitter blocking my free speech?" to "why is Twitter penalizing my free speech?". Plus, what's legal speech is a real grey area. Free speech cases constantly go to the Supreme Court because we're talking about a near infinite number of ideas that can be expressed. And intent usually matters. So when Kanye writes his "death con 3" tweet, is it a direct threat to incite violence (not protected), an ambiguous threat that's not actionable (possibly protected), a joke (very likely protected), or as a brand new idea that hasn't been expressed yet (possibly protected)? At the end of the day, a human has to make a decision. So, we're just swapping Jack's and Parag's vision of content moderation for Elon's, but it'll still be content moderation - perhaps better, perhaps not.