Admitting they have a censorship board while at the same time strawmanning what I said. Quite the prowess if I may say so! NB. I did not say that was the only safety concern, I said that same team censored the Biden laptop with no good reason except that it harmed the chances of the most popular president in the history of the multiverse.

The good reason seems to be the same reason any private company makes editorial decisions to shape its coherent speech product: because they are seeking an audience that doesn’t want to hear constant jibber jabber about “her emails” or “his laptop.” This is their right under our property law regime, not to mention our right as consumers (i.e., under the law there is no way for you to force me listen to you).

My post was not long but you managed to completely ignore half of it. This was not Twitter's decision but rather the three letter agencies', which is totally illegal.

Correct, I was only replying to "censored the Biden laptop with no good reason[.]" The rest of your post was not worth considering.

I appreciate the "we can do what we want with our property" trend in big tech now because I adore the idea of private property rights, which include the right to exclude. One example of why the right to exclude is so excellent is this thread, where the community has combined to inform you that your opinions and attitudes are not useful or within the spirit of our rules. Under your proposal, we would have to listen to you go on forever about how you feel the law should work. I am thankful internet platforms are able to institute such measures in order to control the insane nonsense we have to wade through.

Nope. The no good reason was the government intervention. You can't just ignore one half of a sentence because you identify as not wanting to acknowlege it.

"you identify as"

My proposal being that the government is not allowed to censor? It's not a proposal, it's the first ammendment

Proving my point by flagging comments critical of my interlocutor's intellectual capacities for misrepresenting me while ignoring that they both misrepresented (I'd say on purpose) my comments. Funny! Don't change silly cone valley! ps. to reiterate I said that three-letter government agencies dictating what these platforms censor is totally illegal.