Censorship as an apex predator. The ideation of ideas. We are only allowed to think if exposed to an official archive. Google’s search engine and all those little boxes popping up to pull you into the rabbit hole. The New York Times is not social media. The New York Times has embedded social media as a paradigm of continued engagement. Part of this SCOTUS judgement will have to fit into the journalistic marketplace. Where do you draw the line between increased engagement and journalism. If you want to fan the flames, just add gravitas by weight. Like free speech. Nothing is free. Nothing. Comment moderation is tangled up in this cultural knot, and it’s going nowhere. Who gets to decide what we can think. Comment moderators are acquiring editors. They just don’t get paid like acquiring editors. Usually, comment moderators are scattered all over the world and AI does most of the heavy lifting. Exactly, how do we sue AI. You sue AI by suing everyone around it. In discovery, you can ask the person across the table if they believe that social media is a dialogue. They will say no. It’s a marketing tool. Continued engagement voraciously devouring the tail of what should be done can be done. They want to control what you see and what you think. I have a list of words I am not allowed to articulate. I write for comment moderators, editors, editorial assistants, marketing departments, and sources. You filter everything through an army of critics. You write for them, you’re finished.