zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
It's interesting that many are debating the value of this 'rule', when this action is blatant abuse of his powers to silence his critics. He has now a lengthy and growing history of this type of behavior, so it was 100% foreseeable. He could just come out and say that its his twitter and he can do what he wants, but no, because he also wants to be seen as a 'defender of free speech'. He acts like a-hole, but then expects unquestioning adoration.

>>Eddy_V+Xv1
Welcome to the new Twitter, just like the old Twitter.

At least now everyone understands the value of a neutral free speech town square and can see that "it's a company, they can do what they want" was always a disingenuous argument. It was never principled, it was always predicated on bias alignment. It's the same with those who are happy about these journalists being banned. Blatant bias and hypocrisy on both sides.

>>memish+XK1
I have no idea why you're getting down voted.

Previously you could tweet "kill all white men" and nothing would happen. Not so much with the same statement targeting a different group.

>>bitcha+D82
Source or examples?