> wasting your life watching all of those “must have shows” makes it sound like your brain has been co-opted by the content producers.

>Maybe put down the remote and pick up a book?

Isn't that the same thing?

Libraries are free so no. And, the selection is wider and better given the historical economics of literature vs streaming (steaming?) content production.

Don't sell your brain time to the lowest bidder.

I suggest you too read into Jobs' history before making that claim, lol.

Jobs' career was dramatic I know but there is something off with Elon. He has superhero complex or some other mental problem/s.

> Because it was cheap and he wants to support journalism.

Sure, WaPa does fantastic journalism- it's obvious that they must be supported for their lengthy history of great pieces.

It almost sounds like you're implying that most of the conversation is happening on Twitter, that it is the town hall.

Good. Time to break it up and enforce fair rules.

nope. not implying that.

the reason twitter works and is successful is that you have people from all backgrounds and walks of life. people that get banned don't follow the rules that Twitter has (if the rules are fair, etc, is another discussion, but everyone has to follow the rules)

> he has fired a lot of his own employees for what they said or posted online, no need to test him more.

Twitter is not Tesla or SpaceX neither are they considered the same (at all). To expect him to treat everything the same across the board is a disingenuou unrealistic expectation.

What about the reports that he canceled customer's orders after a blog post that they have made?

he used the term "absolutist", moreover those firings would probably be illegal in most civilized countries.

Calls of violence, deformation and whatnot are already illegal and partially enforced towards one side of the ideological spectrum.

Although groups like qanon tend to sway naive users to extremism, it would be unfair to silence different thoughts just because it "may" lead to that.

Fight bad ideas with better ones.

Spot on. It was easy to criticize the internet back then and the criticisms made sense. The tech has matured a lot since then and we're more online than ever.

Every community will always have bad actors, it's unfair to judge the entire community because of them

Then how would a different privacy-preserving coin get adopted? If all it takes for a privacy-preserving coin to fail is other coins in the market, then I don't think it is naive to consider the possibility that "blockchain technology wouldn't become more privacy-friendly to the extent that governments trying to have power over it practically need to give up".