If the details are new, the lesson of the "Twitter Files" is an old one.
@DavidAFrench argues that in its desire to limit "harmful" speech, Twitter behaved exactly like universities in the era when speech codes ruled campus.
(h/t @thedispatch)
1/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
@DavidAFrench argues that in its desire to limit "harmful" speech, Twitter behaved exactly like universities in the era when speech codes ruled campus.
(h/t @thedispatch)
1/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
The speech code was born of a desire to protect students and faculty from psychological discomfort.
In many cases it was vague and broadly enforceable, granting administrators extraordinary power over speech.
Something similar happened at Twitter.
2/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
In many cases it was vague and broadly enforceable, granting administrators extraordinary power over speech.
Something similar happened at Twitter.
2/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
In both cases, vague rules, little to no transparency, and ideological monoculture gave rise to double standards on speech.
A better way forward means delivering free speech in accordance with the First Amendment.
3/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
--
A better way forward means delivering free speech in accordance with the First Amendment.
3/4
persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
--
Protecting online speech does not mean "anything goes."
Enacted and enforced in transparent fashion, rules barring harassment and obscenity, while protecting viewpoint neutrality, would go a long way towards a successful free speech-rethink.
4/4
More: persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
Enacted and enforced in transparent fashion, rules barring harassment and obscenity, while protecting viewpoint neutrality, would go a long way towards a successful free speech-rethink.
4/4
More: persuasion.community/p/the-twitter-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
