Yes. And "quality speech" does not come from stopping certain speech. It will come from finding, recommending, amplifying certain speech: that which is informed, relevant, wise: you pick the criteria! 1/
https://twitter.com/sivavaid/status/1504796907843035139
The problem with the internet-is-bad game of whack-a-mole is that platforms are judged by what they don't kill ("something must be done"). It sets the terms of the discussion about discussion around what is bad & killed to cleanse the public sphere. That is futile & dangerous. 2/
See the first page of Harper's first issue in 1850. Its mission was to help folks find the good stuff. Our institutions that did that in the age of print are inadequate in a time of abundant speech. It's not the speech that's bad. Our institutions-NYT-aren't up to the task. 3/ 
.@siva is, as ever, right. The NYT seeks a path to quality speech. Its path is a ride down memory lane to when it could determine & control what speech was good. All the speech that's fit to print. As I said in my thread, they resent having to share the stage with other speakers.
When Harper's began in 1850, its
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
