billionaire media tycoon and mayor of san francisco. vp @foundersfund. ringleader @hereticon. editor-in-chief @piratewires 
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I’m not trying to be a smartass, honestly. I hear this kind of anti-censorship argument all the time (who on Twitter hasn’t?), but I rarely hear alternatives. Maybe you or one of your followers has some ideas?
the burden of proof is not mine. the obligation to make a case belongs first to those who would alter (dramatically, here) the existing system, and i have still not heard a coherent argument in favor of censorship.
One argument is that some people are too easily persuaded by bad faith actors in the marketplace of ideas, and those actors have an easier time than ever of being believed. And because that persuasion leads to all sorts of social maladies, censoring those actors is appropriate.
every outspoken politician in washington ascribes insidious, "hateful" motive to their political opponents. ambiguously defined, any law that would empower some kind of "hate watchmen" would be clearly a political weapon. and who watches the watchmen?
Our “original” system sported laws vs sedition, slander etc. We moved towards open—even raging—debate on issues eg slavery; post-hoc we coalesced into separate, closed camps Much of today’s “debate” is actor-run propaganda to hold the base in micro-camps. Well worth questioning
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
