I subscribe to the school of thought that says platforms which get overrun by the far right should be left to collapse. You don't see people making the argument that liberals should join Truth Social. X is no different.

And finally, the assault on Section 230. This is the endgame for independent speech.

If you repeal 230, you don’t hurt Google or Meta—they have the lawyers to survive. You destroy the small forums, the independent blogs, the dissenters. You make the cost of speaking the truth too high to bear.

Keeping a society safe and free is gardening, not nature watching.

Whether you think that's good or bad will not affect the outcome. I see demographic change as an underlying factor, like gravity, we simply have to adapt to as well as we can. If you want to pick a fight with a mathematical function, go ahead. But it seems to me as if you’re wasting your time.
9/13

Mary-Ann Stephenson assumes - either from ignorance or malice - that trans people have no legal rights as trans. That is deeply troubling from someone holding her role - although hardly surprising given her history.

Awful - and hopelessly out of her depth (just as two Select Committees concluded).

Third, she said the EHRC's draft Guidance "angered trans campaigners" when restating what she falsely claimed the Supreme Court decided. No mention of the fact it was withdrawn, is disavowed as law by Government lawyers, will soon be adjudicated on by the High Court, or angered many cis women too.

First, she frames the issue as a conflict between transgender rights and women's rights. Where is the evidence for that broad framing of conflict? Where is the evidence that women as a group see there as being a clash? None is given and women remain supportive of trans rights.

Second, she then completely misstates what the Supreme Court decided. She says it decided the question of who should be able to access single sex spaces. That's just flat out mis or disnformation. Here's what Lord Hodge said.