This exchange was amazing:
The answer if you are into free speech is actually obvious enough that everyone is getting it. A specific intervention to appease one political party is precisely the type of media bias that free speech advocates are most worried about. It's not a big deal if the media has a known authorial voice (think Fox News) but it looks bad if that is from a supposedly neutral platform that is supposed to allow engagement.
I am not saying that this move is the end of Twitter or anything, but it increasingly looks like the owner has a specific viewpoint agenda. Which is sad, because I find the extremely dense information exchange of Twitter to be its biggest asset and, without that, I lose a lot of the value it brings to me.
Even more interesting, the last time this exact politician tried this they discovered that Twitter was completely uncooperative. Josh Marshall has a good summary here.
This is exatly the same answer Pavel Durov gave after blocking russian opposition telegram channels a few years ago.
ReplyDelete