This view that only government's can censor, that only state agents coming to your house and slapping something over your mouth counts as limiting free speech, really needs to be tackled.

The oddest part is that's it's generally the left which seems most content to let private companies wield extraordinary power over who can speak and how.
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons to limit free speech. Right now we are seeing one of them with Trump - to prevent incitement to violence and a threat to the functioning of democracy. But it is still censorship.
We need to be clear that that is what it is, rather than limiting our definition of censorship to the smallest range of actions conceivable.
This is not a new idea. Benjamin Constant, Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill were treating the silencing which comes from society as equivalent, or more dangerous, than that of the state hundreds of years ago.
Redefining censorship as state-only is like winding back the maturity and sophistication of liberal thought back to the pre-Napoleonic era.
The other distinction which needs to be made is between a social media site like Twitter, which really has become equivalent to the public square - a key part of civic life - and a publication like a magazine.
Being booted from one is not equivalent in effect, even if it might be in cause, from being booted from another.
Anyway more thoughts on this - mostly questions rather than answers - here https://t.co/9KW6GIGhm8

More from Government

🧵⬇️1. Fb is LifeLog, LifeLog is Darpa, and DARPA is a Enterprise Run by CIA... Well... Past President... Big Tech, Big Pharma, MSM, HOLLYWOOD, DC...

Past Presidents....Zuckerberg, Gates...
All C_A... the Family business.... The company...


2. Past Presidents....Zuckerberg, Gates...
All C_A... the Family business.... The company...The Farm.... all C_A assets... most of them related by blood, business, or marriage...


3. "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst." - J. Edgar Hoover


4. diff. names & faces.... Monsters that lurk in the Shadows. Swamp, Deep State, Establishment, Globalist Elite Cabal...

Shall we go back...How far back...


5. I know these monsters... it's when I try to explain them to others is when I run into a problem.This is why I'm better at retweeting and compiling. I never know where to start... Everytime I try to thread, i end up w/ a messy monstrous web.I'm better at helping others thread.

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.