Yes, un-believable it is.  The logic of 'him' thinking he has free speech to shit on our free speech is on par with his logic of claiming to be a professional without any proof he is.  Basically it lies and tries to be reasonable with me for a while, and then strongly defects.  They should really improve 'its' software before they let it back in.  Background checks are part of being a professional and he has no resume to send me in a message.  I think I have asked for that a few times!  But when your Deep State chatbot is just a rip-off of a real profile, you can't do that. 

Their rudimentary exercise of the prisoners dilemma shows their agent to not be not so good, the pattern is always the same.  But that is not evidence.  Failure to send me the resume, that is evidence.  Real evidence.

If you can't prove you are not part of the simulacrum, then simulcra is all you are.



Something like that.

He has free speech.  He can put up his own web site and speak as freely as he wants.  We have no obligation to publish everything he writes.  That is called Editorial Control.  And he is also well aware that complaining about our editorial policy is a Violation of the CoC.  3 more days in the cooler.

RE

I will admit that when I first was online I had the common, and totally foolish notion that free speech actually meant letting everybody talk and say whatever they wanted to.

Looking back it seems like an incredibly stupid point of view to have.  Because once someone 'owns' a press, as apposed to printing shit with someone else's, things change.  Ideas about free speech mature quickly.  Until then it is easy to have the foolish notion because you expect everyone else to have your own standards of behavior.

Which is rarely true.