Firing the person who fought against government censorship and worked to establish a balanced content policy for almost a quarter billion people across the planet is not a great move if he wants anyone to believe that. The only people who even know who she is either know the good work she does or had it out for her over the reluctant and long-delayed ban of Trump. She just kind of quietly kept Twitter from turning into a complete snake pit while making sure the maximum number of people could speak. Evidence that keeping your head down and doing good work isn't enough if the people who decide these things don't know about it.
Can you include this one person's name in your comment or reply so that people like me who are unfamiliar can evaluate such a glowing endorsement of "her" "good work."
I know this sounds like a cynical question, but without a name your comment seems a little bit fanatical.
The weird thing is, I didn't think Tim Pool was completely wrong. I, too, prefer having removed speech available but contextualized. There have been times where I wanted to answer a "prove it!" but couldn't find the video/tweet/whatever because it was completely removed with no explanation.
I also understood Vijaya Gadde and pre-Musk Twitter's position better even if I still think their systems end up hitting marginalized people more than the people who want to marginalize them. The task is harder than Musk realizes, and he fired the person who's been working hardest on it for most of the last decade and understands the problem space best.
The problem with that person though was their obvious bias, as Pool pointed out. She needed someone to challenge her at work, not just on a podcast. Clearly, other Twitter employees were not going to do that as they agreed with those biases.
Ideological clone of Musk or Gadde? I'd imagine that if there's more freedom in what can be written then it doesn't matter, a censor that supports free speech is no censor at all.
