Twitter really isn't a social network. If you follow industry professionals and academics, it's a feed of interesting and important news tied to your direct interests.
> Except for the ones who are banned for violating the “Twitter Rules.”
This reminds me of criticisms of "metoo". Yes, i'm sure someone somewhere got a raw deal. But as far as I can see the people banished deserve it, and the overall ecosystem is better for it.
So you think SciHub deserves it? And that we’re better off without their voice?
Obviously, you’re free to think what you like but this seems like a sad and limited worldview. Assuming that everything removed from my perception deserves to be removed.
I don't know. For what it's worth, the account is back and the entire basis for this conversation (a perm suspension) is null and void.
The system largely works, from what I can see. Getting thrown off Twitter for 24h isn't that bad of a mistake even, given the scale of the challenge they face to enforce their TOS to billions of accounts.
On reddit you've got your mates page which shows you only posts from people you follow, on facebook you can curate your wall to some extent to only see news from your family and friends. You can do the same thing on twitter. It's still social media and an extremely toxic implementation of it at that.
Sorry but you are still equating content from your friends with content from trusted sources and experts. I love my friends, I don't care what their opinions are on most things (because they are often uniformed). And I don't want to see endless pictures of their kids.
So it’s good if you like a feed of things tied to your direct interests, that Twitter allows.
I’m interested in Sci-Hub. I don’t want to use Twitter for part of my interested and the ??? for other things.