Twitter

Jack Dorsey's Exit From Twitter Could Worsen Tech Censorship

The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal.

|

Jack Dorsey has resigned as CEO of Twitter, having served in various leadership roles at the company since its inception in 2007.

"I've decided to leave Twitter because I believe the company is ready to move on from its founders," he explained in a statement.

While Facebook has attracted significantly more attention in recent months, due to widespread concerns—some of them overblown—that the site spreads hate and misinformation and is making teenagers depressed, Twitter is the preferred site of the media and political classes. The virtual blue bird's nest may have significantly fewer users than Facebook (300 million versus 2 billion), but its importance to policymakers means that it plays a larger-than-merited role in political discussion. If a change in leadership leads to significant internal policy changes, this could have an outsized effect on the news media.

Anyone who harbors concerns that social media have already grown too intolerant of dissenting opinions—too inclined to silence viewpoints that depart from liberal orthodoxy—should be worried about Dorsey leaving. That's because the long-serving CEO has occasionally articulated an ideological commitment to the principles of free speech; of all the tech industry pioneers who have been hauled before Congress to answer absurd questions, he was by far the most hostile to the idea that the government should serve as the internet's speech police.

While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come out in support of tweaking Section 230, a change that could give Congress more power over content moderation policies, Twitter has remained defiantly opposed to increased regulation. When I interviewed Lauren Culbertson, Twitter's head of U.S. public policy, for my book Tech Panic, she warned that chipping away at Section 230 could "entrench incumbents" and "stifle innovation and competition." When activists sued Twitter, demanding that the site remove then-President Donald Trump's account, Twitter refused, citing Section 230. Trump may now be gone from Twitter—having finally behaved in a way that manifestly violated the site's policies—but without both the protections of Section 230 and Dorsey's support for free speech, the site might have acted much earlier and in much more heavy-handed fashion. (Undoubtedly, there are many Democratic politicians and progressive media figures who wish that it had.)

Twitter's board has unanimously approved Parag Agrawal, the company's current chief technical officer, as the new CEO. Agrawal's main project at Twitter has been Bluesky, an initiative designed to create "an open and decentralized standard for social media that would help better control abusive and misleading information on its platform." In an interview a year ago, Agrawal commented that he thought Twitter should "focus less on thinking about free speech."

"Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation," he said. "The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed."

Agrawal is correct, of course, that Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment; as a private company, it can make whatever moderation decisions it wants. But under Dorsey's leadership, Twitter has been a place for wide-ranging conversation on topics of political importance, despite some undeniably questionable moderation decisions. Dorsey has resisted pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to bring the company more in line with their views. Whether Agrawal will do the same remains to be seen.

NEXT: The U.S. Imposes Travel Restrictions in Response to New COVID-19 Variant. Again.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Off topic and, fuck you!

      1. It’s never off topic. And why does it upset you so much? Are you a fan of Marxism?

        1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just
          use the info on this page............ Visit Here

        1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.HFe Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site...

          For more info here.........VISIT HERE

      2. Stuff it up your ass; your head's asking for company.

        1. If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.NBr Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

          Start today...........Earn-Opportunities

      3. Fuck Joe Biden.

    2. Fuck Joe Bidet!

      1. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me... They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500... Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet...Read all about it here... Visit Here

  2. Are private companies not bound by contract law, Robby?

    1. Also, fuck Brandon.

    2. Once they reach a market cap of a few billion dollars, private companies are only responsive to the whims and demands of progressives, who will use antitrust and taxation to turn those companies into propaganda machines. And Robby likes it that way.

      1. i love that your ideology of unrestrained, unrestricted Capitalism is biting you in the ass

      2. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month FTy Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time. Every person easily do this job by

        just visit.............BizProfit

    3. And defamation law and IP laws.

      But, only if the companies are online.

      Because the extension of legal privilege is what libertarianism is all about.

      1. Special protection regulations are the most libertarian thing ever according to resident legal scholar White Mike.

        "It is an example of well-crafted, free market enabling regulation."

        https://reason.com/2020/12/18/the-bipartisan-push-to-gut-section-230-will-suppress-online-communication/#comment-8647905

        1. "Special protection regulations" my ass!!!

          Hey EvilBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

          Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

          In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

          Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

          Refute the above, Marxist bitch! You can NOT!

          1. Refute what?
            It's near gibberish that doesn't actually make a point, and some babbling about how 230 was originally intended to work but clearly doesn't.

            Rewrite your argument coherently and concisely to give me something to refute, and I'll do it gladly.

            1. Shove your hypocritical, non-answer "answers" up your mile-wide ass, evil bitch!

              You can NOT understand my questions? It MUST be that I am a poor writer, right? It could NEVER be that you are TOO stupid or arrogant to understand and acknowledge my questions, OR your evil, power-piggish ways, right? Excessive stubborn pride = EVIL, bitch! Meditate on it!

              1. TDS-addled spastic asshole gets flagged.

              2. So you refuse to articulate your claims. What a cheap troll you are.

                1. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer the utterly moronic for another loss! She can't READ a clear argument, let alone justify her fascism, Marxism, and power-pigging ways!

          2. That was a whole lot of words, when “I eat shit” would have sufficed.

  3. Aggressively go after Twitter for violation of contract and false representation of what the service is.

    Screw what it is in the fine print. Go after how it marketed itself for years.

    1. Demand your money back! All those dollars you paid to Twitter! They didn't promise you a damned thing, but you should still get all of your zero dollars and zero cents back!

      1. "Twitter is free service to you"

        Lol. Oh Brandyfuck, you're so amazingly credulous.

        1. He is just fucking ignorant and defensive when his California woke corps get attacked.

        2. Well if you're paying for Twitter someone needs to show you how you can get it for free.

          1. How about we take the money they've made off our data from you, evil faggot

          2. Please do, because data mining and ad serving isn't "free" in my books.

          3. Not sure why you’d brag that you don’t understand how this business model works.

      2. Immaterial. What they sold themselves as and what they are do not correlate well. Fraud and deceit can still occur without financial exchange.

        1. You're just mad that they banned Trump, right?

          Literally your only political position is that Trump should be god-emperor because he is infallible, right?

          If Twitter isn't suppressing people like you, then it's really being socially irresponsible.

          1. Are you capable of posting without randomly making bullshit assertions of peoples beliefs? I mean, I know you’re only here to be a lefty troll, but maybe mix it up a little?

          2. Tony, how is it that you have become progressively less intelligent the more time you're here?

            You're not emptying a terribly deep pool of intellect to begin with.

        2. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks… YOU EVIL POWER-LUSTING ASSHOLE!!!!

          How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

          Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

          So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

          “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
          Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

          (Etc.)

          See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comment-8316852

          1. 'Nother flag for the TDS-addled spastic asshole.

  4. As a private company, Twitter could literally ban everyone who isn't fully on board with the progressive / neocon / corporate / libertarian #Resistance. Honestly I hope they do exactly that. We witnessed how too much online "free speech" resulted in the illegitimate Presidential election of 2016.

    #RussiaHackedTheElection
    #(WithDankMemes)

    1. Also whenever the topic is "free speech" I like to remind Reason.com what one of its contributors has to say. According to Noah Berlatsky, hate speech should be regulated (as in, banned) not just by private tech companies, but by the government itself.

      See his excellent piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

      #BringBackBerlatsky

  5. Twitter doesn't support free speech unless they let Donnie-boy lie 24/7.

    1. Such lazy straw manning.

      1. Most of his energy is spent on child porn and raping little kids.

    2. The Dotard will join his convict team soon. - Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2, May 23, 2021

      Any updates on this?

      #ItsMuellerTime

      1. Why, yes, just yesterday;

        Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen said the investigators looking into the Trump Organization could 'indict Donald Trump tomorrow' and be successful

        https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-022613243.html

        1. Don’t hold your breath.

        2. It's about time!

          #TheWallsAreClosingIn

        3. Two more weeks!

        4. IS THIS A TIPPING POINT!??

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvRJLUWwFs

          The beginning of the end, the walls are closing in...

          1. Oh good times.

        5. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    3. lies are free speech.

      1. Sure, but Twitter isn't obligated to give Donnie-Boy a platform to lie.

        I heard conservatives complain that Twitter was violating Donnie's free speech rights by banning him. It's like they never read the Bill of Rights.

        1. >>Twitter isn't obligated

          no it is not.

        2. I heard conservatives complain that Twitter was violating Donnie's free speech rights by banning him. It's like they never read the Bill of Rights.

          "Free speech" is a much broader concept than the First Amendment. It's not clear to me whether this person is an idiot or a liar to claim one means the other.

          1. "Free speech" is a much broader concept than the First Amendment.

            One thousand times this. But Reason and our fifty-centers are trying extremely hard to pretend that freedom of speech is only about the First Amendment. They care more about American legal minutiae than the concept itself.
            In fact the First Amendment exists to support free speech, rather than free speech existing solely because of the First Amendment as they would have it.

            I'm not American so the First Amendment is irrelevant to me, but the ability to practice true free speech is still of paramount importance.

            1. The US Constitution is a useful document but, as we have seen, is no silver bullet when it comes to individual liberty. It wasn't that long ago that free speech was the norm even in monarchist hellholes like Canada. I grew up across the lake from Windsor and, in between the seemingly endless curling competitions, it was common to see learned individuals on the CBC speaking critically of government actors up to and including the Prime Minister himself. No first amendment required. In fact I seem to recall that Zoolander the elder was embroiled in a huge scandal involving pussy grabbing or some such thing. The Canadian journalists in those days didn't seem the least bit shy about sharing the lurid details although always in a dignified fashion. Because you know, they're Canadians. Safe in Michigan I smirked a bit because of course nothing of the kind could ever happen in the USA. In any case, the censorship we're currently seeing is a cultural phenomenon that has taken hold throughout the liberal democracies in the West and, yes, even in the frozen wilderness to our North. Reason has consistently been on the wrong side of the story. We've gotten innumerable articles about the first amendment rights of big tech oligarchs and zero analysis of the cultural shift they are helping to create. It will take a lot more than the first amendment to turn this ship around.

            2. Part of the problem is that free-speech requires people to judge What is being said, and do research.

              I think liberals/Authoritarians hate the idea is What they say well also will be questioned, if people start thinking.

              Although apparently SQRLSY, Tony and buttplug haven’t figured out that we’re already questioning everything they say with minimal amount of research, they scared we might, if there’s free-speech.

          2. Both. They're both.

          3. You mean free speech is so broad that it includes the freedom of the former president to publish his treasonous lies on private property.

            1. What has Obama got to do with this discussion?

              1. Heck, you could even say what is Jimmy Carter have to do with a discussion.

        3. Twitter is on their way to becoming a meaningless echo chamber like CNN and your skull. Sorry your libshit portfolio took a hit today. Actually, not sorry at all. 🙂

          1. Did you see all the blow back against CNN for their absolutely rotten and slanted report on the attack in Wakesha.
            They really got heir arses handed to them.

            1. And that is why youtube is now hiding dislike counts. Pathetic communists want to discourage people from speaking up and voting. If you can't see that many others are disliking the same thing you dislike, that demoralizes and makes taking action less likely.

        4. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit who should fuck off and die.

      2. It's the other side or a conflation of the "free as in beer" meme. A conflation that's required to maintain the "beer is free as long as it's not discouraging to minorities" oxymoron.

        Twitter is free to refuse whomever they want, but then it's no longer free speech, it's speech that belongs to Twitter. To subsequently assert that when speech that they've pre-selected offends, it doesn't belong to them, is not acting in good faith.

        They aren't infringing on Donnie's free speech rights, but they aren't simply a megaphone or empty stage for anyone to walk up to and use freely.

        1. You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to someone else's megaphone or soapbox.

          1. They are making editorial decisions. They should lose their 230 privligaes

          2. So, your phone service provider should be allowed to shut off your service if they don't like what you and your friends talk and text about?

          3. And the you do not have the right to take away someone else's megaphone or soapbox. Nor do the megaphone or soapbox manufacturers.

            I can't believe that we have to argue against this fascist twaddle on an ostensibly libertarian site.

            1. Oh, I dunno. This is pretty much where I'd expect the twaddle peddlers to hawk their wares.

              1. Plus, a lot of people are just stupid.

            2. You act like Twitter is the government. It's not. Don't like Twitter use Facebook. Don't like Facebook use Snapchat. Don't like any of them, don't have to use any of them.

              1. Section 230 gives them a privileged position bestowed by the government. That makes them more than just private companies. They are government/corporate collaborations, and as such they are and should be subject to the demands of the people through the government. If they want the freedom of being a private entity, they have two choices: be a common carrier, required to carry all legal traffic without discrimination, or, be a publisher, with full rights to choose content but also with legal responsibility for it. As long as they are a chimera of public and private, they need to keep whining about government interference in how they choose their content.

                1. So you actually believe that letting people sue Twitter for the content it publishes will result in more Republican lies being published on Twitter?

                  1. It's always easy to determine what I actually meant: read what I write. If you don't see it written there, it's not what I meant.

                2. "Section 230 gives them a privileged position bestowed by the government."

                  Tell us, HOW does S-230 specially favor ANYONE? Does the 1A favor anyone? S-230 is the 1-A of the internet era, ya know!!!

                  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                  1. That Techdirt article is actually wrong, but then again so are you.

              2. Guessing you didn’t see earlier this summer where the White House was colluding with Twitter and Facebook on censorship.

                Who am I kidding. Of course you did.

                1. Why do you think Section 230 exists? Because the state was just being nice?

                  1. Section 230 exists because, for once in a bazillion years, Government Almighty chose to LIMIT its own powers... Just like in the 1A... And you do NOT like Government Almighty LIMITING its own powers? WHY do you LIKE Government Almighty powers so much?

                    https://reason.com/2020/12/18/the-bipartisan-push-to-gut-section-230-will-suppress-online-communication/#comment-8646584
                    From the article:
                    “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Tech’ (the only companies in America that have it—corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity,” the president recently tweeted.
                    There’s your “logic” from Der TrumpfenFuhrer, and MANY conservaTurd commenters on these pages.
                    By the EXACT SAME logic, ANY laws shielding gun and ammo manufacturers and-or sellers (Remington for example) need to be held accountable for the shootings of crazy users of their products! Remington, exercise better editorial control of your bullets!

                    Hey conservaTurd assholes-commenters! Ye moochers off of a “liability shielding gift from the U.S. to ‘Big Guns and Ammo Tech'”…
                    You ready to pay $90,000 per gun and $15 per ammo-round, or pay out the ass for insurance, for your guns? No? Then you are hypocrites ass usual!

                    1. By the EXACT SAME logic, ANY laws shielding gun and ammo manufacturers and-or sellers (Remington for example) need to be held accountable for the shootings of crazy users of their products! Remington, exercise better editorial control of your bullets!

                      So, if gun manufacturers don't like the message you send with your gun, they can revoke your gun?

                      I don't think you know what the words 'exact', 'same', and 'logic' mean.

                    2. No, you stubborn, deliberately-pretending-to-misunderstand LIAR, FacePoooo wants to use you to sell its adverting, but micro-managing assholes want Government Almighty to do their dirty work, and get between you and FacePoooo. And drive costs right up the wall! Same as Remington wants to sell you affordable bullets and guns, but micro-managing assholes want Government Almighty to do their dirty work, and get between you and Remington, and make your guns and ammo cost $$$Bazzilions!!!

                      Does it take a genius to see this? Am I one of the very few geniuses around here? I don't think so! You're just being plain mendacious!

                  2. https://reason.com/2021/07/07/andrew-cuomo-declares-a-gun-violence-disaster-emergency-and-signs-a-bill-that-invites-lawsuits-against-firearm-suppliers/#comment-8983985
                    Willfully blind people won’t see… What a surprise! More news at 11:00!
                    “R” Party power pigs argue that Section 230 is a “liability shielding gift” to Big Tech, preventing TRUE justice, which would allow me to sue Facebook for the writings of PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FACEBOOK! Who are merely using Facebook’s product!
                    “D” Party power pigs argue that the current laws and legal traditions are a “liability shielding gift” to Big Guns and Ammo, preventing TRUE justice, which would allow me to sue Remington for the shootings of PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT REMINGTON! Who are merely using Remington’s product!
                    What does it take for ideological hyper-partisans and idiots to take their blinders off?

                  3. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033950752/remington-subpoenas-the-school-records-of-children-slain-at-sandy-hook
                    From above…
                    “In July, Remington offered a $33 million settlement. The plaintiffs have yet to respond to the offer, the Post says.”
                    Remington is being held responsible for the doings of a gone-bonkers user of its product… Classic “Punish Party A for the doings of Party B”. This injustice being applied to guns isn’t enough for you? Now you want to add MORE of this crap, to words as well as guns?

                    1. Notice your use of the abstract "Punish Party A for the doings of Party B". It doesn't say anything about what was done or how it was done and, indeed, your examples applies to cases across very different industries. The idea is that something is fundamentally broken with the court system and that some solution like a loser pays policy would more succinctly, accurately, and within the bounds of The Constitution broadly address the issue. However, your solution is that Congress more onerously, whimsically inaccurately, and regardless of The Constitution not fix the problems.

                      Your examples demonstrate it as such. Despite your obviously unassailable claims of "exact same logic", Remington is shielded and is still paying out while Twitter is not shielded as its section 230 protections are well-observed.

          4. You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to someone else's megaphone or soapbox.

            So, what you're saying is, definitively, using someone else's megaphone is not free speech.

    4. I wish people would just come out and say what the real problem is. It’s not a free speech issue.

      Twitter is more likely to censor people who are actually correct, in favor of propagandists who are often wrong.

      Totally legal. It just makes Twitter less valuable.

      1. "Totally legal"

        And utterly immoral.

        1. Oh, then, I guess "Parler" is utterly immoral as well!

          PARLER: ‘FREE SPEECH’ APP POPULAR WITH FAR-RIGHT FIGURES BANS PEOPLE FOR SPEAKING FREELY, USERS CLAIM

          https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/parler-app-ban-free-speech-trump-b1721710.html

          1. 5 flaggs for the TDE-addled spastic asshole.

          2. Yes.
            You didn't expect that, did you, fascist crank.

        2. But is it…… barely legal?

      2. Or maybe you have your facts wrong.

        Where do you get your facts from? Steve Bannon's podcast?

        1. I get my facts from the people who think Kyle Rittenhouse hunted and killed black people, and are waiting for the evidence on whether Jussie Smollett was really the victim of a hate crime. Unless that evidence suggests he faked it, in which case, the evidence is racist.

          1. So truly the trashiest of right-wing propaganda shithole websites.

            Jussie Smollett? I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Covington kid.,

            Do you have any fucking clue how vast the universe is? You're talking about a one-day story from 3 years ago? What has happened to you?

            1. Jussie Smollett's trial just started. Are you not aware of this?

              Maybe you need better news.

        2. So that’s a no on my question above.

      3. Uh Brian, that is most free speech issues in a nutshell. The private, subjective, unpopular, unofficial, politically incorrect vs. official propaganda.

        And frankly when an issue is extremely emotional, what’s correct or mistaken is usually hidden by “the fog of war” and for most only clear in hindsight, so accuracy should not be a consideration for what should be allowed to be said.

        Personally I think we should be more interested in how liable you should be for an inaccurate information later, Rather than muzzling those we disagree with now.

    5. Well, yeah. That's kind of what free speech is.

      1. Moreover and more pointedly, you don't get to kick people off for telling lies and then claim you're a good faith protector of free speech.

        It's just abject retardation. Like the parable of the Good Samaritan they all read involved the Good Samaritan sifting through thousands of Jewish Travelers bleeding at the curb and only helped the ones he liked or the ones who agreed to help spread his message.

    6. "Twitter doesn't support free speech unless they let Donnie-boy lie 24/7."

      I mean...yeah, that is basically true. If you support free speech, that means...you know...supporting people speaking all sorts of stuff, including lies.

      It is interesting to me- but not surprising- that SPB doesn't get that.

    7. turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
      If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
      turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

  6. I see: Reason is shilling for the government/media oligarchs again.

  7. >>Twitter is the preferred site of the media and political classes.

    lol Echo Chamber of the Douchebags

    1. Considering the fact that nobody trusts the media or the political class yeah echo chamber pretty much sums it up. But if ENB can't link to some guy on Twitter we'll tragically lose her brilliant libertarian analysis.

  8. "While Facebook has attracted significantly more attention in recent months, due to widespread concerns—some of them overblown—that the site spreads hate and misinformation and is making teenagers depressed, Twitter is the preferred site of the media and political classes."

    Who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the hate and misinformation being spread.

    1. 90% of hate speech on facebook is anti white and anti male. And they are happy with that

  9. Dorsey has resisted pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to bring the company more in line with their views.

    From what I've seen, Republicans believe conservatives should have the same right as progressives to speak on social media. Democrats believe that social media should censor views that disagree with progressives. A libertarian publication probably shouldn't support equal resistance to both ideas.

    1. Reason's oft-repeated position is that forcing private companies to permit free speech is just as much an infringement on free speech as telling them who they have to ban and what ideas are off limits. It's baffling, really.

      1. They SHOULD be allowed to permit free speech and be free of liability for the content. Or, they should be allowed to curate what's allowed on their platform and suffer liability for it. One or the other. Not this government/corporate chimera status that allows the state to contract out constitutionally prohibited censorship

    2. A libertarian publication probably shouldn't support equal resistance to both ideas.

      Reason is concerned about what happens to FB and Twitter because, in order to evade a similar fate, Reason would have to demonstrate how they're fundamentally or substantially different. Easier just to run the "It's all 1A speech (except the religious parts, which we don't publish anyway)." cover narrative.

  10. As I mentioned in morning comments, younger people are bailing on Twitter and flocking to Snapchat, with Snapchat being a woke mob resistant platform.

    Demographics and market forces* will be driving Twitter going forward--and if the future didn't look so bleak, Dorsey would have chosen to remain the CEO of Twitter rather than his digital payments company, Square.

    Right now, Twitter is projecting that they'll increase their subscribers by 50% and double revenue over the next two years--which I find laughable. There simply aren't enough people out there who want to join a Twitter outrage mob to justify those projections. If they don't open the doors to the non-woke soon, Twitter will die by attrition. No new young users, no un-woke people either, and they're going to double their revenue in two years?!

    LOL

    I don't remember the last time I saw a CEO that was better positioned to fail spectacularly--better than the new CEO of Twitter. Couldn't he find a job running a buggy whip manufacturer somewhere?

    1. *Market forces are always just people making choices. In this case, we're talking about teenagers choosing not to use Twitter and to use Snapchat instead.

      1. In this case, we're talking about teenagers choosing not to use Twitter and to use Snapchat anything else instead.

        FIFY. Agreed Snapchat is the strongest direct competitor but, IME, Twitch and Discord aren't doing Twitter any favors either.

      2. And half the older users realizing they aren't welcome, and leaving. Gee, who could have seen that coming?

    2. *Market forces are always just people making choices. In this case, we're talking about teenagers choosing not to use Twitter and to use Snapchat instead.

    3. The new CEO of twitter is a racist. I just deleted my (fake) account.

      1. To find someone who's never said anything awful on Twitter, they may need to restrict their new CEO search to people who've never used Twitter.

        P.S. Bring Oliver Peck back with Inkmaster!

        1. You can't have Twitter the way it's set up without Twitter mobs, and that's what's driving all the policies. If they changed this or that or decided not to moderate certain content, nothing about the culture of Twitter would change. When you put a normal distribution of people into the Twitter ecosystem, they will eventually make it the way it is.

          It may be possible to improve Twitter to some extent, but ultimately, so long as it's designed to organize outrage, it will continue to generate outrage mobs--and reactions to them. They can plant some flowers along the side of the river, but the river will keep taking the path of least resistance to the sea.

          They can only save Twitter by making it so it's not Twitter anymore, and I don't think they can do that.

    4. Hate to agree with you, but I do.

      The core issue is that the Twitter format is conducive to a mob that is hanging off the coat tails of Hollywood and media. It's an emergent order feeding on celebrity worship to spread its hate. It's not even conscious. But once people realize they can start Twitter mobs over the most inane of imagined offenses, they do.

      I don't blame Dorsey or Twitter for this, any more than I blame my lawn for having crabgrass.

      1. Ok, maybe with "some" crabgrass it's not a big deal. But you know who is to blame if your lawn has almost nothing BUT crabgrass? Management, that is: YOU.

        "Almost nothing but crabgrass" is the condition twitter is in. I really think it's an IQ issue. Pseudo-moderate, liberal-adjacent both-sidezers cant think through the consequences of their own thoughts and analogies.

        Of course twitter is not to blame. Just like a red SUV is not to blame in Waukesha. Of course Dorsey and management is to blame. Low IQ is the problem, Im tellin ya.

        I think that lawn is gonna fuck up colossally. And to you, it will seem like a sudden strike of magic.

      2. And again, pseudo-moderates can only think in low resolution, binary terms. Crabgrass or no crabgrass is all you base your successive thoughts on.

        While the rest of us is shaking their heads wanting to scream: OF COURSE THE AMOUNT, I REPEAT, THE AMOUNT OF CRABGRASS MATTERS. IF ITS ALL OVER THE PLACE THEN YES, MANAGEMENT IS TO BLAME.

        1. But it's not all crabgrass. It's just your bubble that is all crabgrass. When all the people you follow are crabgrass, then it looks like everything in crabgrass. You need to follow a higher class of people.

          1. I don't follow anybody. I'm a free man.

            1. Brandybuck is a virus.
              An evil virus.

              1. And an adolescent piece of shit hoping for a daddy-figure in the WH and to put him to bed each night!
                Joe is just so dreamy, right Brandyshit?

            2. Hm....note the initials...Glenn Greenwald, that you?

          2. I don't follow anyone on twitter. I just surf by and check the public accounts. Don't even wanna know what's under the surface in all the private twitters.

            Defeated bootlickers like Brandysuck instinctively assume I "follow" someone. To be expected.

            I didn't say it was "all" crabgrass. Only most of it. Again, your low-IQ, binary thinking shows.

          3. Use your brain to do anything useful for once and get a sample of highly popular, high follower count twitter accounts. I promise you you will get a ratio of about 80/20 in favor of crabgrass.

            Fuck, I think that was too much for him.

    5. If you aren't already on Twitter, I can't imagine why you'd join.

    6. How brave to stand up for the people who want to express small-minded hate and bigotry to the world but sometimes can't because they threaten death.

      So brave.

      1. Tony, if you don't support free speech of the vilest person whom you can't stand the sight or sound of, then you don't support free speech.

        These freedoms don't protect the popular and well liked. You know that.

        1. I absolutely advocate for the right of everyone, even vile bigots, to be free of government interference in their speech, provided they do not threaten, harass, incite violence, or call for the overthrow of the United States.

          1. Then why are you in favor of internet platforms being puppets with the state's hand up their ass, exercising censorship that would be illegal for the government to do directly?

            1. Private entities can exercise censorship that the US government cannot. Yes. That's true and always has been. The ability of a publisher to publish what it wants, instead of what some mob wants it to publish, is part of free speech.

              1. Yes, and I'm fine with that. Learn how to fucking read.

                1. Tony’s not very bright. If your response isn’t what he’s expecting, he’s going to respond to what he thinks you think, not what you actually say.

          2. The only people trying to subvert the republic are you and your democrat friends.

      2. "Politically popular speech has always been protected: even the Jews were free to say 'Heil Hitler.'" ~ Isaac Asimov

        1. But I'm also allowed to criticize someone like Ken for saying "Heil Hitler."

          The problem is that fascists don't actually support freedom of speech or any other freedom. They put on liberal principles like makeup. It's a scam.

          1. Ken said heil Hitler? Really? Wow. You are a shameless piece of shit.

            1. Better a shameless piece of shit than a fascist.

              1. Yet you ARE a fascist. You’re just a delusional sociopath that’s convinced yourself that you somehow believe in freedom.

                1. He’s still a shameless piece of shit too.

              2. But you're actually both, Tony.

                1. In what way am I a fascist? That claim makes absolutely no sense.

      3. Dances with Strawmen is active today.

        Hey Dances with Strawmen, have you ever thought about taking a course on basic human soft skills, designed for autistic psychopaths? It could enable you to occasionally interact with an actual, alive person and address their thoughts with a thing called "nuance".

        1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

          So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

          Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

          Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

          Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

          At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

          Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

          Thank You! -Reason Staff

          1. Lol spaz has been triggered

          2. I do not know if soft skill courses for autistic psychopaths are affordable for welfare-sucking, obsolete, wrinkly, unsuccessful losers like you. But maybe there's a charity that could help you.

  11. Too long, don't care. Miss peer-to-peer discussion like Libernet-d.

    What do you suppose is going to happen as vaping displaces smoking and eating for a cannabinols high? On one hand is the societal trend toward legal cannabis; on the other is the demonization of vaping as a means of taking in nicotine safely. Are the advocates' heads going to explode as one aim crashes into the other? Are they somehow going to make it nicotine bad (and by implication cigarets sort-of good), THC and CBD good? Still leaves open-tank and plain flavor vapes in limbo.

  12. I like how they replaced Dorsey with a unapologetic racist.

    1. As opposed to an apologetic racist?

  13. What's the big deal? Twitter is used regularly (defined as 3X weekly or more) by less than 10% of the US population. If Twitter went away tomorrow, the worst I see happening is that Reason writers would go back to producing libertarian-oriented articles.

    1. They can't, they would need an entirely new writing staff

      1. Maybe they could get Balko back.

        1. No, Balko has fallen to the disease as well. It's pretty sad, seeing as how it was Balko that brought me here.

          Yeah, I know that's another strike against Balko for some people. 😉

  14. Good thing that freedom of speech doesn't depend on corporate Top Men to be "committed to it". I used to laugh along with the "just start your own Twitter lmao" people because it's ridiculous to expect the common man to recreate all the parts of society that can exclude him but there's a difference when it comes to social media: It actually doesn't matter. The thing that no one gets about Twitter, Facebook, et al, is that none of it actually matters. If the grocery store won't let me shop because the owners feel like enforcing some kind of political dress code, that's one thing. If the library won't carry my book because certain people don't like that it exists, that's one thing. Fucking Twitter though? It doesn't matter. Nothing on Twitter is real. Facebook has no impact on the real world. It's complete fabricated nonsense. Don't believe me? Try these simple steps:
    1. Don't post on Twitter, like at all. Ever. Just don't go there.
    2. Don't read Twitter posts. If you read a news story with Twitter posts in it, just skip over them. If you see people post screenshots of Twitter posts. Just scroll past them. Treat Twitter as the nothing that it is.
    3. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: NOTICE how unchanged your life is (other than having more free time and less anxiety).

    These companies are not the new world order. They are ephemeral fads and they will come and go. Notice already Facebook's once-all-encompassing reach starting to fade. Just like MySpace and Yahoo and Geocities and UseNet, they'll all fade away with time. Twitter will be dust in the wind soon enough. The more you engage with it and try to force it to be the thing you want, the longer it will stick around. Just let it go and you can be free.

    1. Never engaged it to begin with. And if I had it would only provide me with a very very "blue" echo chamber.

    2. No Twitter, no Facebook (ever), no problem.
      Life is good.

    3. It doesn't matter. I've never been on Twitter. Sometimes someone sends me a link I find funny or ironic, but I would miss nothing if it disappeared.

      But I'm not a celebrity hound. I could care less that some B actress is tweeting. My friend, on the other hand, makes it his whole career to follow the tweets of the slightly elite and famous. Gaagh. To me Twitter is like a box of bite-sized People Magazine.

      1. You spend a lot of fucking time defending corporations seeking to censor voices.

    4. The only thing I would disagree with is if there is a post by a political figure, company, or a news organization, treat Twitter similar to the headlines on a news stand. That's what they are, headlines.

      Similarly, Facebook is a place to share baby pictures with Grandma or chat with your distant friends about whether the new Star Trek will be any good.

      These media companies are fine if kept in their proper place

      1. I would think we, as an American society, should realize after the last four years how little value ought to be placed on a politician's tweeting habits. Politicians posting stuff on Twitter isn't worth anything. No one should have taken Trump's tweets as seriously as they did. Repeat to yourself again: Twitter isn't real. Nothing that happens there matters.

    5. I think this is wrong.

      Not because a given individual can't survive without access to Twatter or Facefuck.

      But because these places are the space in which a number of national conversations are occurring. And frankly, it's important to be able to have access to the battlefield.

      It's not a question of whether you can ignore the people who use Twatter, it's a question about whether the people who use Twatter will ignore *you*.

      1. But because these places are the space in which a number of national conversations are occurring.

        No, they aren't. You've been conditioned to think that they are, but they aren't. There's literally no conversation happening on Twitter. You actually factually cannot carry on a conversation there. You can yell at people, but you cannot have a dialog. You call it a battleground but there's no ground to win. There's no objective to seize. There's no winning, no losing, only a nebulously defined "battle". It's a war with less reward for winning than a Call of Duty match.

        1. Given that Twitter mobs use Twitter to get other people actually fires from their jobs, your take seems exceedingly naive. But I suppose the rest of the locals will have to decide for themselves on the subject.

          1. "fired", damnit.

          2. I'll vote exceedingly naive.

            1. If by naive, you mean ridiculously head-stuck-fully-up-own-ass idiotic, yes.

          3. Yeah I don't do Facebook or Twitter but I see the damage done.

  15. While Facebook has attracted significantly more attention in recent months

    Has anyone seen the propaganda facebook has been running lately? Apparently they need government's help in regulating people's privacy.

  16. Also, I didn't realize there was a new rainbow flag. Jesus, I can't keep up.

      1. How can they manage to keep the hate up if they admit there's been progress?

      2. When I'm elected king of the gays, I will impress upon people the virtues of good flag design.

        1. No, you wouldn't. You would pander to every grievance club until the flag was covered with tiny pin stripes.

          1. I only became comfortable with the existence of bisexuals in the last year or two. You don't know how regressive I can be.

            1. It doesn’t surprise me one bit. You are exactly the kind of homo that completely eviscerated trannies for decades. Now you turn around and act like you’re some big advocate for them.

              A hypocrite like you should drink a bottle of Drano.

              1. Says the resident open genocider.

                i'm for freedom. It means nobody gets to tell anyone else how to live their personal lives. What about you?

                Oh, you actually want to murder millions or billions of people for not being in your tribe? Oh okay.

      3. My god that’s ugly.

    1. There's like, six of them in the last year or some crap.

  17. When activists sued Twitter, demanding that the site remove then-President Donald Trump's account, Twitter refused, citing Section 230. Trump may now be gone from Twitter—having finally behaved in a way that manifestly violated the site's policies—but without both the protections of Section 230 and Dorsey's support for free speech, the site might have acted much earlier and in much more heavy-handed fashion.

    Sigh, this nonsense again.

    If there had been no "protections of Section 230", tech firms would not dare remove any content, because the Prodigy libel case precedent was explicitly that a service's liability flowed from its decision to exercise editorial control. Section 230, just like everything else in the Communication Decency Act, was about censoring the Internet (the editorial control Prodigy exercised, making them liable for libel, was focused on "indecent content"), not about making the Internet safe for free speech.

    1. +1

      "We refuse because we don't moderate." [more free symbol] "We refuse because Congress says we can."

    2. It's just a terrible argument. Twitter censored Donald Trump WITH Section 230, while Dorsey explicitly stated the world leaders were exempt from the Twitter TOS except in extreme cases like a violent threat against an individual. *cough*Rushdie*cough*

      Then they banned him over what was clearly a non-violent tweet, but a tweet that was made after his supporters broke some windows. WHILE section 230 was in place. So now we're reverting to "but for" arguments about 230. They would have killed MORE Jews had it not been for section 230. Two weeks to flatten the Terms of Service violations!

      Twitter and especially Jack Dorsey are mendacious lying cunts. And the guy they replaced him with is a Racist, and will likely be worse than Dorsey.

      1. What trump supporter broke a window? If your referring to Jan 6, the guy who broke the window is an unindited Co conspirator, and most likely working for/with the fbi

      2. Nice.

    3. Bad argument. Internet platforms are not public goods. Section 230 states that YOU are not responsible for what someone posts on your blog. Section 230 says that if you block on comment you are not liable for the stuff you failed to block. An internet platform is just a bigger version of your blog's comment section.

      You call it censorship, but it's really just the blog saying "You can't be a troll in my comment section". Some blogs were fine with trolls, but weren't okay with porn. Others didn't mind the porn so long as you didn't attack other users. Doesn't mean it's censorship.

      And it's not about making the Internet safe for free speech, it's about making the Internet safe for free speech platforms.

      Remember when several of us made jokes about woodchipping? Remember when a pissed off judge tried to sue Reason to divulge everyone's secret commentariat identity? Well it was Section 230 that kept us safe and Reason going. It's Section 230 that let's me post here a few good woodchipping wouldn't be such a bad thing.

      1. I miss the good old healthy woodchipping discussions.

      2. Section 230 states that YOU are not responsible for what someone posts on your blog.

        AS LONG as they moderate "in good faith".

        1. Section 230 says you do NOT have to moderate fully, or partially, or whatever. That's the whole reason for 230, so platforms can moderate imperfectly and not get their asses sued off if some troll slips through the moderation filters. Back in day that was a real issue when human moderators just couldn't keep up with the trolls. Now it's okay if a troll post gets taken down a day late.

          But people expect sites to be perfect in moderation, making no mistake, letting absolutely everything through except the trolls and porn. So some sites give and don't moderate at all, like 4chan.

      3. You call it censorship, but it's really just the blog saying "You can't be a troll in my comment section"

        The law in question refers to this act as editorializing.

        Publishers are specified as different than platforms. You can't even get that part of your 230 defense right.

        1. Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?
          SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!
          This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!
          WHEN will authoritarians see and acknowledge their power-pig fascism?!?!

          NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!

          In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!

          What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!

          1. TDS-addled spastic asshole flag!

      4. What "argument"? I'm not stating how things should be, I'm stating what the law actually was prior to Section 230, and the direct consequences of it.

        Yes, it is absolutely true that "Section 230 says that if you block on[e] comment you are not liable for the stuff you failed to block." That's exactly why it's exactly backwards to claim that Donald Trump was able to stay on Twitter because of Section 230. Donald Trump is off Twitter solely and entirely because of Section 230. If there was no Section 230, Twitter (or whatever equivalent that filled its space in the ecosystem) would exercise zero control over "hate speech" or "misinformation" or whatever else because exercising zero control would be (under the pre-Section 230 legal precedents) the only way to avoid liability. And everybody would expect it to exercise zero control specifically because it would be understood that it would become massively liable the instant it did so.

        And of course a no-censorship equivalent of Twitter would exist, because without Section 230, Amazon would, faced with the choice of exercising editorial control over what services it allowed to use AWS or being liable for everything AWS was used for, would exercise zero editorial control. Thus our counterfactual no-censorship equivalent of Twitter/Parler would have no trouble operating.

        You can argue that such a counterfactual world would be bad because people wouldn't have the ability to police spam and trolls on web forums. That is absolutely true. (We'd probably have wound up with some derivative of killfiles and Baysian spam filters and Net Nanny services, and it may well have failed to be as good as what we have.)

        But on the factual basis, it's clear that Soave is full of shit when he claims Trump was able to stay on Twitter because of Section 230. Rather, the only reason anyone could even consider Trump being kicked off a communications service for the content of his communications is that Section 230 ended the world where doing so would incur liability.

    4. "If there had been no "protections of Section 230", tech firms would not dare remove any content"

      If there had been no "protections of Section 230" then no one would have made any of these websites whose primary feature is enabling anonymous strangers to post stuff for you to get sued over

      1. It's cute you think the purpose of social media is posting cat pictures.

        Defend those corporations, nothing will go wrong.

      2. The pre-Section 230 world was zero liability if you exercised zero editorial control. And we had plenty of services enabling anonymous posting (Usenet, anyone?) in that world.

  18. Twitter's board has unanimously approved Parag Agrawal, the company's current chief technical officer, as the new CEO.

    Reason, do your job, he's a racist.

    When the news media was still scratching their chin over the nature of the Waukesha "SUV" crash and whether the driver was "a he or a she", the internet had the perpss name, picture, criminal and social media history and likely motivation for the attack within an hour.

    Agrawal is a racist. Full stop.

    Or is Reason no longer using Twitter as a source?

    1. Out of curiosity, do you think there are any white racists?

      1. Out of curiosity, do you think?

      2. Interesting question, do I think there are ANY Muslims who are extremists... Hmm....

      3. Are there any Black people who like watermelon, fried chicken and purple drank, Tony?

        1. I don't believe anyone who says they like watermelon.

      4. Dances with Strawmen is active today.

        Hey Dances with Strawmen, have you ever thought about taking a course on basic human soft skills, designed for autistic psychopaths? It could enable you to occasionally interact with an actual, alive person and address their thoughts with a thing called "nuance".

        1. It's not such a bad idea. I'm generally OK in person, unless the subject is JJ Abrams, then I have opinions that are probably too strong.

          1. Nobody believes that you’re ok in person.

      5. Racism comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Just like every other for, of prejudice. You should know. You’re a massive bigot.

  19. Waiting for the other shoe to drop. Who has Jack sexually harassed, slept with, or said mean things about?

    1. I don't think that's the case here. Well, let me rephrase, I don't think there's a legitimate case here. Whether someone will pull a #MeToo on him at some point because of the Herpetologist's handshake, who knows.

      But apparently people high up in Twitter have been trying to push Dorsey out for years.

  20. Sorry, the Associated Press has declared the election results official, according to our fact checker.

  21. Jack Dorsey's Exit From Twitter Could Worsen Tech Censorship

    I also like how low our expectations are getting. Adolf Hitler's replacement could bring about a more draconian dictatorship!

    1. Do you know who else was literally Adolf Hitler?

  22. TLDR: Poor Jack. He secretly wanted free speech, but those hateful racist white supremacists demanded he censor them. And they were only Republicans, so who cares? What comes next could be bad for us fake libertarians at Reason.

    1. Cute that Robby would believe anything Jack says while ignoring what he actually did.

      1. Sorta like the TDS-addled assholes here regarding Trump.

  23. Twitter's Lenin to replaced by its Stalin.

  24. Is there anything more ridiculous than being a free speech warrior in the age of Twitter? Speech is free. It's cheaper than free.

    Twitter is an addiction machine developed by the casino industry. It has provided no known benefit to humankind. All it does is spread lies and ill will.

    Just look at the guy. Coming up with a new method of addicting people to the internet and making a billion dollars does not make you wise. These tech jerkoffs controlling the globe with their half-baked freshman philosophy horseshit worldview is the actual threat to our freedom.

    You can speak. You can speak way more than any human has ever had the capacity to speak. You should speak less, in fact.

    1. And Twitter is the favorite social media of the political and chattering classes.

      Perhaps you can take your own advice, because you are proving things by writing here.

    2. "You should speak less, in fact."

      As expected of Tony.

      "You can speak way more than any human has ever had the capacity to speak."

      That is less true in the West now than the previous sixty years. You're confusing platforms with ability.

      In the seventies Dodge ran a topless ad in Playboy. What are the chances of doing that now? https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-ads-and-brochures/seventies-vannin-a-few-survivors-on-the-streets-and-some-great-vintage-ads-including-a-topless-one-from-playboy/

      1. I can find a picture of literally anything within 5 seconds.

        1. It wasn't a one off Tony, in the seventies Dodge ran ads for its “adult toy line” on TV.
          https://jalopnik.com/in-1978-dodge-wanted-to-sell-us-adult-toys-1838131011

          Saucy double entendres were an advertising staple back then that would never be allowed to air nowadays because of censorship.

          1. And people like Tony.

          2. Same applies to programming. Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in would be impossible today.

      2. Zero.

        A.) Because the vastly corporate entity that runs Mopar now has no balls, and

        B.) Because Playboy is out of print now.

  25. Concern for Dorsey's successor worsening tech's censorship sets up the false idea that tech isn't supposed to be in the censorship business. They censor the information flow just as much as CNN and the New York Times and Disney, pretending somehow that they're neutral and unbiased and fair when that's the biggest crock of shit since the wolf pretended to be Little Red's grandma. It's their job to be censors. Spare me the lies about your concern for free speech, the First Amendment, the truth and full and fair discussions of the issues.

    1. True. The First Amendment exists to protect private entities' right to curate their own information. That's what freedom of the press is. What's the alternative? Congress requiring private entities to publish certain opinions?

      Of course, Republicans don't understand the constitution any more than they understand biology or history.

      1. So, slightly better than Democrats?

        The main question is about liability for libel or incitement, which the first amendment doesn't address.

        1. But I struggle to have a strong opinion about that. The internet as we know it presumably wouldn't exist without a Section 230 type protection, but I'm not enamored with the internet as we know it either.

          1. You struggle with just bout everything. Your college education was clearly a waste of money, just as you are a waste of life.

      2. Dances with Strawmen is active today.

        Hey Dances with Strawmen, have you ever thought about taking a course on basic human soft skills, designed for autistic psychopaths? It could enable you to occasionally interact with an actual, alive person and address their thoughts with a thing called "nuance".

      3. "Congress requiring private entities to publish certain opinions?"

        Government pressuring "private" platforms to publish or censor certain opinions is what we have NOW under Section 230.

        1. And how does that work exactly?

          1. An example has already been cited in this thread.

            1. And dozens of times in other articles on this subject. But when you’re a lefty troll like Tony, you just ignore anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    2. Is it time yet to say the quiet parts out loud?

      1. Yes. Whom do you want to mass kill?

        1. Dances with Strawmen is active today.

          Hey Dances with Strawmen, have you ever thought about taking a course on basic human soft skills, designed for autistic psychopaths? It could enable you to occasionally interact with an actual, alive person and address their thoughts with a thing called "nuance".

          1. Why don't you ask Mickey Rat what nuance he wants to say out loud.

            1. I could. It's also telling that you jump to murder just like that.

    3. Spare me the lies about your concern for free speech, the First Amendment, the truth and full and fair discussions of the issues.

      Hate to be the guy defending Reason here, but Reason has been fairly unconcerned with free speech as of late.

  26. "an open and decentralized standard for social media that would help better control abusive and misleading information on its platform."

    Basically turn it into a Facebook and Reddit hivemind of vote brigading.

  27. I am curious what he will end up doing.

  28. One more time: it is not accurate to call a censorious platform cowering behind Section 230 a "private company". It is a government/corporate partnership at best; a de facto government agency at worst.

    1. Lots of companies get, or exist because of, government protections.

      If you want to be a socialist, just say so. Save us all from having to deal with this libertarian nonsense.

      1. No, moron, I'm saying I'm AGAINST the government bestowing special privileges on corporations in order to exercise control over them and end-run the Constitution.

        1. The very existence of a "corporation" is predicated on government protections.

          1. Yes, protections that are available to all corporations. Not special privileges designed to make the corporation an arm of the state. Learn how to fucking read.

            1. You're throwing out some broad terms like "arm of the state." All Twitter is doing is not publishing lies that get people killed and states overthrown, and it's doing a shit job at that. Twitter is by far a better friend to fascists than democrats.

              It's actually baffling that you think Twitter would more freely publish people's random brain farts in the absence of liability protections. Twitter likely wouldn't even exist at all. (Not that I'd have a problem with that.)

              1. That is the opposite of what I have repeatedly said here.

              2. They offer a digital bulletin board. As such discriminating on who they allow to post while legal isn't the best strategy for growth. And they have a blind spot with the CRA of 64...if any smart conservative or libertarian can prove disparate impact (say Twitter kicks off white folks at a % much higher than their % of the general users..its discrimination..I expect a lawsuit using that rational shortly with all the big tech firms). This is going to get very entertaining. The more they censor the faster we get the final separation.

              3. Politically, Twitter is an unabashed agent of the democrat party.

                1. And Facebook is an unabashed agent of the federal bureaucracy.

  29. Dorsey is a goon. Twitter is shit. Neither is changing because of his resignation from the board.

  30. Twitter should be forced by 'Truth in Advertising' law to change it's corporate motto to:

    All of the deranged ranting of the public square with none of the associated rights.

    Becuz my privat CoRporAShuN, twatters!

  31. The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal.

    That's like worrying about whether a Nazi concentration camp is preferable to a Soviet uranium mining labor camp.

  32. Parag Agrawal seems like such a racist, greedy a--hole that he may end up doing serious damage to Twitter. So maybe this is good after all.

    1. I would like to see the end of Twitter, and Facebook.

  33. If you own Twitter stock, I'd probably start unloading it.

  34. Please please please this new woke anti European American CEO...censor all conservatives and libertarians. Kick everyone who question the woke ideology, fiat currency, and anyone challenging the BLM narrative off the platform. Be vigil..stamp out anyone who does not walk the line...I can't wait. This just gets better and better. Michael Malice will be very happy.

  35. Twitter locked my account something like two years back because they didn't like something I said about the goatfucker regime in Iran. They offered to unlock it if I gave them my phone number. Fuck that.

    I don't need them, and neither does anyone else.

    -jcr

  36. As usual, the Babylon Bee is on the story:

    https://babylonbee.com/news/jack-dorsey-resigns-in-embarrassment-after-realizing-he-helped-elect-joe-biden

    SAN FRANSISCO, CA—Jack Dorsey has stepped down as CEO of Twitter after realizing to his horror that he helped elect Joe Biden as President.

    "Dear God...what have I done?" said Dorsey as he realized his manipulation and suppression of political speech had led to the election of Joe Biden to the White House. "I am no longer fit to lead Twitter. I resign."

    Many critics agree that Twitter played a huge part in the election of Joe Biden, widely seen as the worst catastrophe since the creation of Twitter itself.

    1. Do they cite any evidence that Twitter had any actual effect on the election?

      1. Idiots like you have never needed evidence for that assertion before.

  37. Those 300 million Twitter users are the equivalent of Kim Jung Un in their concentration and misuse of power. They are able to effectively punish and end the ability to earn a livelihood of anyone they decide to pursue, based solely on their whims.

    I don’t now if Instagram really makes some teenage girls depressed (as opposed to simply being teenage girls causing their depression), but I do know that Twitter not only ends the careers of innocent men and women, it also has a corrosive influence on everyone else. And that influence is intentional: by making examples of a few, the so-called Twitteratti intimidate everyone else into silence, restricting their speech and virtually their thought, into a very narrow range of approved talking points they’ve determined…for now. Just like the “we’ve always been at war with East Asia” of 1984, the Twitter elite/low-lifes reserve the right to change any aspect of the approved talking points without prior warning.

    If Dorsey leaving weakens the platform, that can only be a good thing. We can only hope it will one day be weakened enough to die off and leave the world slightly less repressed the moment it collapses.

  38. One thing is certain. If people don’t stand up to protect their rights now, like 1a, they won’t be there when we need them to protect us.

    Abdicating 1a in the name of liberty for big tech is like advocating the post office to read your mail.

    People can no more communicate on their own platforms than they could reasonably deliver their own mail.

  39. According to the zealots of property rights, once all property on earth is owned, there will be two irrefutable classes of people.

    Those born into families with property and those who aren’t. The latter having no home, effectively slaves.

    Is this what you believe the founders intended?

    1. And even the people born into families with property will never be free from the coercion of parents threatening to not share it with their children.

      1. "The Founders were opposed to hereditary succession. They intended for parents to disown their children." - Rob Misek

        1. You making arguments for me is the only way you’ll ever refute them.

    2. You have the mindset of a medieval peasant, in which the only valuable resource is land.

      Or perhaps equivalently, the mindset of a Nazi worrying about “Lebensraum.”

      1. And you can’t refute a word I say.

  40. Sounds like people are afraid their shitty views might not last on the platform much longer.

    So....how about you just go make your own? Surely it won't fail because people find your comments terrible and unpopular? I mean, gab, voat, etc. are still around no?

    1. When everyone makes their own platforms who will they be speaking to?

  41. "The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal."

    HAHA!
    YOU FUNNY, ROUND-EYE.

  42. Far too many people have become emotionally addicted to Facebook and twitter and it's obviously taking a toll. It's not healthy and not promoting anything but distrust and suspicion.
    If you're still addicted to either of these you need to step back and take a good long look at your selves and consider that you're in the same boat as any other addict.
    People who have kicked these two from their lives find themselves to be much happier and a lot more sane.
    So stop it. Take back control of your own lives.

  43. Well, that didn't take long did it? The new CEO who has a the woke/marxist view of America ("white straight males evil", everyone else needs special protection) started off on the right note. Banning in essence independent media outlets to push CNN/MSNBC and so on. Twitter is just a woke echo chamber..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.