Twitter Soars After Surprise Sales Gain, First Real Profit

So, people don't depend on the Xbox network to regulate the social position of Microsoft. We have those discussions on other forums. But, if AT&T started censoring, what would stop them from working with other telecoms to standardise on a CoC where you couldn't criticise them? If you say, "because that would be wrong and people would stop them," then you're back to believing in limits on what it's right for a private corporation to censor.

So, the question is, where should we draw the line? Well, I'd propose that it should be deeply frowned upon to limit any discussions that server any social purpose; pressure release, activism, anything that connects society together and keeps it in sync. Unfortunately, those discussions sometimes use bad words.

By the way, there actually is an important (progressive even) social purpose served by individuals being crude. The bystanders watch, and depending on how the crowd responds to the bad behavior, they adjust their idea of how wrong it is to engage in the behavior. If you were to take bad words and hate entirely out of the information diet of everyone, we would all loose our socal resistance to seeing them. (Note: this is a great argument against filter bubbles as well.)

This is sort of begging the question though, since the question at hand in a way is precisely whether that is still a good manifestation of the free speech ideal. A good case could be made that scale critically matters; your tiny football forum of like a couple hundred people can make whatever rules it wants, and anyone who doesn't like it can easily just go somewhere else.

On the other hand, if Level 3, the internet backbone provider, hypothetically started censoring based on the content of what was going through their network, we'd have a free speech problem.

I don't think it's that shocking an idea that Facebook and Twitter are now large enough that they should be obligated to take a very light hand, basically the minimum the government permits, on the grounds that free speech is not something that should be killable by the simple expedient of making as much communication as possible flow through commercial entities, then freely applying arbitrary censorship to the communication because it's a private entity. It isn't even that far of a trip before the government "requires" things of the companies that produce this result with some clever plausibly-deniable requirements, and thus free speech is just mysteriously suppressed even though it's nobody's "fault". If free speech is that fragile, it's materially ceased to be free speech.

I'm pragmatic about free speech, not legally deterministic. I want the effect of free speech, not a legal form of free speech that yet somehow lacks the effects.

Why: Subreddits for different tokens/currencies end up being echochambers (but still good resources as long you follow multiple subs). HN rarely shows blockchain stuff and the upvoted ones are often just anti crypto.

Following 30-50 crypto influencers on Twitter provides a good mix.