letter to a twitter rep

Your company has led many to believe that you are not censoring. this implies some kind of inherent science to you're methods. Censorship is your right as a part of private property. Your social network is your property, but you set a precedent for people to leave. They will, especially with all the downtime your company has had as of late. You are delusional if you think you are above some censorial duty. (The argument that you are a monopolizing government that should not censor except in threatening cases is valid, but I will not use this here for a sake of argument because the accusation of a monopoly has not been proven yet.) I expect you to censor. I also expect there to be a backlash against you if you do without reasonable doubt of physical harm. you claim I have broken the architecture, but if so then you have to disable @chrisbrogan 's account because he is the one who theorized of the possibility of "panopticons". Another slippery slope. Certainly your architecture needs to be open enough with freedoms so that people can practice free will, but if this is so then twitter needs to stop being a coward and elaborate on what architecture abuse is. (and before you delete the accounts... not afterwords! shame on you!) At a certain point you are passing judgment with discretion. just now on this page I used foul inappropriate language, but I used it in the context of the forum here. There is no consistent method to this. The fact that you think there is, is a huge problem! Yes you can delete my accounts... but this is not the end of this. The pandora box has opened and if you do not elaborate and detail exact situations of abuse then the only people who are guilty of breaking your architecture is yourselves. Tell your buddies at twitter and co. that I am making my next campaign an education on how to build another "panopticons". Now there will not be one, but rather many. Your error will now be viral. Next time do your company a favor and include the alleged in your thought process. In courts both parties have to keep each other informed of what information is at hand. (witnesses, evidence, etc.) It is hard to take a company seriously about they're pretensions of free speech without the transparency. you're no better then any other social network. you seem to think your farts smell better. We all do.

this is a comment here
http://getsatisfaction.com/twitter/topics/is_panopticons_abusing_the_terms_of_service#reply_499110

Related Links:
http://simonstudiotheatre.blogspot.com/2008/05/get-satisfaction.html