Am I concerned about Twitter banning the President? No, because I've been online since I was 17 years old. Any venue too haphazardly moderated—either too strictly or too loosely—grows unstable and collapses.

So what if Twitter is Too Big. So was MySpace, Livejournal, Usenet...

Did Twitter make a mistake? I don't think so. Its primary concern is that its HQ is here in the US and frankly the Reps are more likely to drop the hammer on social media than the Dems, especially if the Reps can ignore election results.
The irony is that the recent conservative rage over Section 230 is so misplaced. If you want to turn social media into publishers responsible for the user-base's content, you're going to have giant swaths of users banned to avoid lawsuits.
Every town and city newspaper gets letters from their subscribers reading, "Jesus told me in a dream that we should go down to City Hall and string up the mayor! This Monday, at 3pm...."

They don't publish them. Think for two seconds as to why.
Same with printing. Years ago I edited the book SAVING PRIVATE POWER by Mickey Z which included images of a Nazi swastika. Printer wouldn't run the plate, and yes it was an anti-Nazi book.

Didn't want to have a worker traumatized by seeing 10000 swastikas go by.
There has never been and cannot be a duty to provide an audience outside of re-education camps.

All the faux libertarian complaints about Big Tech monopoly capital (lol) boil down to the fact that capital isn't a direct appendage of an oppressive state at all times.
Should there be a government-run social media platform? Ooh, maybe.

Do you wish C-Span was more like Public Access? (I kinda do.)

https://t.co/Hv87WZBjSG
But I guarantee most people wouldn't use a state-backed social media platform, because if it was really "anything goes" it would be nothing but torture porn, evangelical sermons, and algorithm-generated ad copy.

More from Government

I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.

You May Also Like

Margatha Natarajar murthi - Uthirakosamangai temple near Ramanathapuram,TN
#ArudraDarisanam
Unique Natarajar made of emerlad is abt 6 feet tall.
It is always covered with sandal paste.Only on Thriuvadhirai Star in month Margazhi-Nataraja can be worshipped without sandal paste.


After removing the sandal paste,day long rituals & various abhishekam will be
https://t.co/e1Ye8DrNWb day Maragatha Nataraja sannandhi will be closed after anointing the murthi with fresh sandal paste.Maragatha Natarajar is covered with sandal paste throughout the year


as Emerald has scientific property of its molecules getting disturbed when exposed to light/water/sound.This is an ancient Shiva temple considered to be 3000 years old -believed to be where Bhagwan Shiva gave Veda gyaana to Parvati Devi.This temple has some stunning sculptures.