I posted something to the effect that Klaus Schwab and his sort ought to be put through a wood chipper and the slurry fed to the hogs. Specifically, the algorithm says I violated the rule that says "You may not share abusive content, harass someone, or encourage other people to do."

Well, so much for free speech.

What is "abusive" content? It is something like "the common good" in that both are neatly elastic terms that can encompass just about anything. There is no precise – and so knowable – definition. It is the antithesis of free speech when you are unable to know in advance what you're allowed to say without triggering speech suppression. This method restrains speech a priori, as the philosophers say. It is a little like holding your tongue at the Thanksgiving table because you know that if you say anything your mother-in-law does not like, there will be consequences.

What Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense was surely regarded as "abusive" by George III, but it was a manlier era and grown men dealt with affronts differently once. In our time, we are corralled by an algorithm. It is effronterous as well as effeminate all around. The (supposed) presumption being that grown men (and women) are too delicate to see words that affront them and must be protected from such "abuse" by an opaque algorithm that operates kind of like a unseeable schoolmarm who can smack you on the back of the head at any time, just because she can.

Which is what Xcrement's algorithm did.

"We've temporarily limited some of your account features," reads the notice I was sent. I was informed I could "learn more" by clicking a provided link. Whatever happened to the more forthright and manly: For more information . . .? The shrink-dicked soy boy who came up with "learn more" ought to be . . . put through the wood chipper and the slurry fed to the hogs. I can state that here, without fear that I will be smacked on the back of the head by the schoolmarm. Because here there is free speech. Literally as well as operationally.