I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

I get incredibly anxious about her finding incriminating things that I didn’t do and I know don’t actually exist, but what if they do somehow?

Probably exactly what has been reported. Putin waited for things to settle, weakened Wagner troops by taking their weapons and splitting their numbers, then they killed leadership. Occam’s razor certainly points to this.

But, of course, the way it was done certainly leaves the door open for conspiracies.

Every time I see it I can’t get past how hideous it looks. I just don’t get it…who’s the target demo for this thing? They’ve already been beaten to market by non-absurd looking trucks, how big could their market actually be?

The issue of climate change is routinely one of the most important issues for young people, so perhaps she played a role in that.

The question itself is pretty useless because how could we possibly quantify a single activist’s contribution to a global issue?

Quit playin’ games with my heart