What exactly makes Twitter the arbiter of truth in these matters? Just because the risible Dr. Fauci says something hardly makes it true, since he has been all over the place on the matter, the despicable Jack Dorsey notwithstanding. Twitter is a communications platform. It should let those who pay to use it say what they want and let the debate begin and continue. Jack Dorsey figured out a way to make a lot of money. If he wants to have faith in government hacks, that's his business. Maybe he should try doing some research — by checking real science and medical journals. You can access them online, Jack. I do it all the time. Do does Alex Berenson.
Because he is a menace to society and Twitter wants nothing to do with him.
ReplyDeleteHe has a Substack, so he's still online. His critique and reporting on the virus panic have been refreshing, especially compared with the corporate media coverage of the same. Presumably, Twitter's just sucking up to the current government leaders like they did when they dumped Trump (which was safely after he was a lame duck), but that's still despicable to those of us who actually believe in Enlightenment values and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is for speech we despise after all since no one has a problem with someone saying something agreeable. For example, I think Rus is overly worried about the virus and frankly wrong about the value of masks and whatnot (yes, I've seen his comments before elsewhere), but I wouldn't cheerlead any venue kicking him off an Internet venue should the political climate change and make his views a minority and controversial. Censorship is creepy whether it's a government doing it or a corporation. The answer to speech and ideas we disagree with is more speech and ideas. That's how democracy works. When one side is suppressed, the system gets unbalanced and tends to head to disasters that could have been avoided.
ReplyDelete