.@jack put restrictions on this account because I engaged in a conversation about that Israel did 9/11. I maintain that it falls under basic freedom of speech to critique a State (again, not a religion), and that it is immoral to censor people, and to lie about the reason. 
@jack As far as proof-of-human goes, I actually value that, my own work on coordination protocols for it was featured here in Bloomberg among other things. I hold Twitter accountable, this all just validates what people are saying about targeted censorship. bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
@jack We all have to carry our choices with us. I think that to drive censorship of public opinions, is an abuse of power, and that like with all reputation, it sticks. Based on dunbar's number and gossip, if you are going to covertly censor people, keep it minimal, or it will be seen.
@jack In other words, you can censor some people some of the time, but you cannot censor all people all the time. When you overdo it, people catch up on it.
@jack Account restrictions are also a slippery slope. It is always just used to be able to more easily police the people it applies to. It is deceitful. And it is deceitful in an age of global, instant communication, when people actually pick up on these things in, what, a few seconds?
@jack In an age of social media, only just beginning, and evolving into "social law", I will continue to express my political opinion that Israel did 9/11. I will view this type of censorship as morally corrupt, from a platform that could, if it wanted to, lead in freedom of print.
