What’s funny is he’s arguing that moderation should be based on behavior, not content. And that you could identify spam if it was written in Loren Ipsum. If th

What’s funny is he’s arguing that moderation should be based on behavior, not content. And that you could identify spam if it was written in Loren Ipsum. If this thread and self-referential Tweeting was written in Loren Ipsum, it would definitely look like spam to me. So I guess I disagree with one of the main points. For me, the content matters much more than the behavior. Pretty sure that’s how the Supreme Court interprets 1A rights as well. The frequency and intensity of the speech hasn’t played a part in any 1A cases that I can remember, it’s exclusively if the content of the speech violates someone’s rights and then deciding which outcome leads to bigger problems, allowing the speech or not.