Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.
Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.
Yes, bad things are on the internet.
That is in no way the content or information I'm describing, nor does it fall into the category of legal free speech.
Bringing up illegal things to argument the suppression of legal speech is, I don't know, moronic.
You are perpetuating a tired trope and I haven't the energy to persist with this discussion
This is where you get bent.
Your logical fallacy is detailed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I hope that, despite what you are implying, this success by Musk is not upsetting to you.
He bought Twitter to stop that from happening.
So, it's safe to assume, in my opinion, that he fired a bunch of people that care more about their ideology than they care about fair or honest debate or acting in accordance with the principals of freedom or the United States