“Stifling free speech” here is appending more speech (a tiny flag from Twitter) below his speech.
It was always headed towards this precise moment.
Social media companies didn’t understand that, no matter how much they capitulated and ceded principles to bad faith narratives, they would be made into boogeymen by those who use grievance as a political weapon.
Social media companies didn’t understand that, no matter how much they capitulated and ceded principles to bad faith narratives, they would be made into boogeymen by those who use grievance as a political weapon.
The political strategy is to work the refs so persistently, even when there’s no call to be made, so you can eventually commit flagrant offenses and still claim the game is rigged.
The point is to break obvious rules and complain so much the refs give up on regulating either.
The point is to break obvious rules and complain so much the refs give up on regulating either.
This is exactly right. This is all part of the show.
The point is to taunt decision makers into enforcing their already existing rules—ones that are enforced on every person who’s not a politician—then claim it’s censorship, an ages-old rallying cry.
The point is to taunt decision makers into enforcing their already existing rules—ones that are enforced on every person who’s not a politician—then claim it’s censorship, an ages-old rallying cry.
I’ve covered this exact gambit for years, from antivaxxers desperate for their next ban so they can sell supplements “they” don’t want you know about, to InfoWars’ video site “banned dot video”:
The point is to break the rules, force action, then scream you’re being silenced.
The point is to break the rules, force action, then scream you’re being silenced.
