Tweet Away

The richest guy believes he shouldn’t tell you what ideas to share on the emblematic time-wasting application in the biggest threat to freedom since the Bill of Rights. Twitter is suddenly a place for free speech, which is super dangerous considering you can share your dreadful little contrarian opinions. Who even approves them?

Self-assigned thought monitors are horrified by unfettered expression. Illiberal liberals haven’t pretended to favor personal expression for awhile. Modern struggle session operators are fine with people having their say as long as they’re the only people.

We must fight hate speech, which is defined as any words that point out why Democratic policies fight fires with napalm. Determining what qualifies as a violation of thought is easy as long as you’re in charge. Rulings may displease those who dare hold that marriage should involve two genders or individuals can only stay one. Not being allowed to speak is the tough but fair sentence for heeding biology.

Liberty-minded folks who want to control you dare suggest a hellish forum where each person could decide what stances are most reasonable. Free speech resembles a free market, which liberals also maintain doesn’t function. Consistency isn’t the best when the default setting features confiscating rights.

Society’s editors-in-chief act as if they should figure out what discourse is acceptable for everyone else. They’re telling you something important. By contrast to their take-deleting ways, you should want them to keep shrieking nefarious intentions.

One of the great aspects about the right to speak is that those who want to limit it announce it. Aspiring stiflers gave away their dastardly plan using the very principle they hope to combat. Inflicting controls to compensate for the inability to muzzle themselves is typical for enemies of commerce who act as if the only way to get rich is to tax the lucky.

But how will poor Twitter make a buck now that it’s reopened? Telling Elon Musk how he won’t make money is another delightfully obtuse proclamation that pompous dolts should not only be allowed but encouraged to share. Society’s wannabe supervisors know as little about profiting as they do autonomy. I hope they continue to deliver baffling lectures despite their unfortunate intentions.

I hate banning hate speech. At one time, that might have gotten me banned, which I hate. But life might suck a bit less now, at least while turning the internet’s steam valve. Users might encounter mean words if others are allowed to rant at will. Humans also might encounter displeasing possibilities if you head outside. Stupid free will and lack of knowing what’s next are one congressional vote away from being successfully regulated into oblivion.

Actual seething deserves shrugging. The unpleasantly intolerant will abuse the privilege to yap responsibly, which is why sensible people exercise the option ignore them. Control freaks are admitting they can’t figure out how to block or mute. We can next explain how texting is like a call without talking.

Yapping is self-regulating. The presentation of facts and interpretations of what they mean constitute an ongoing process like science, which those who spent 2020 shrieking about others daring to bust the six-foot bubble also mistakenly deem to be concluded.

On the plus side, they’re wrong about everything. Your lecturers claim that, say, inflation is caused by corporations that decided to start gouging just as Joe Biden started getting what he wanted. Trusting truth will win out spurs panic in panicky quarters. Each contention deserves open criticism, which drives those out to control what gets said batty.

The sane should want those who hold awful concepts to self-identify. Noxious theories still exist even if those who hold them can’t spew in certain spots. It’s better for lousy thoughts and thinkers to fester in public.

Embarrassment is its own punishment. Pernicious ideologies are defeated by exposing them. Quelling ghouls is easier than confronting them openly. Like trying to create prosperity by sending checks from the Treasury, there’s no actual progress. Ending enmity by restricting access to a microphone is like claiming banning implements lowers crimes, which liberals also do. Fear of confronting alternatives is part of their oh so accepting manner.

Editorial judgment doesn’t require a particularly useless diploma. Figuring out what holds up is a commonly developed skill for humans even if they don’t figure avoiding a major with math entitles them to issue prophecies about truth.

Detecting mendacity is an ability that shows how easy it is to work in the media. Those in useful fields are better at it in their free time with no training and a bit of common sense. Locating accurate claims is easier when one is not invested in believing Democrats care about other people with accompanying loving policies. Humans are better at journalism the less training they have.

Censoring the truth is a curiously popular hobby amongst those who fret about fake information. Tweeters can now say a man who claims to be a woman is still the former even if it infringes on precious delusions. Feel free to accurately opine that Hunter Biden is a grifting scumbag. And you are allowed to notice that masks are as useless as Joe Biden. Fact-checking who’s causing money to be worth less the more gets printed makes wholly unbiased reporters nervous that they’re not sufficiently protecting their sovereign.

Another gate cracked open frightens landowners who demand you heed their interpretations. Jurassic-era dispatchers already lost control of the narrative with this whole internet deal, which really seems to be catching on. Now, the most notable self-publishing site has reinstalled the DIY vibe. Permissive liberals who love controlling every last life aspect managed to crack down on vexing dissent in the ether for a bit. Those protecting us from online rumormongering got the information wrong just like a traditional newspaper. Some traditions may not be worth maintaining.

The right to tweet without regulation from an arrogant do-nothing in the sort of alleged workspace with a foosball table is not constitutionally protected, as a private entity can conduct itself as it wishes. The notion is simply a wise one. Those suspiciously insistent on halting debate could try letting evidence lead them as opposed to their partisan dreams. Branding anyone who dares disagree a zealous hack leads to silly schemes involving restricting words.

Let everyone speak and sort it out. Attempting to control information Newman-style is just one more urge to suppress personally instead of lashing out externally. They should still be allowed to claim it. We will mock them in response. Authoritarian-inclined putzes despise free speech for personal reasons.