> "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself. > "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste."
These are points. The content above them is evidence leading to the points. The points can be made on their own without the evidence, but a good way to construct an argument is to state the evidence before the points. I could have posted them on their own without the stuff about Milo and they would have stood just fine. That's what I'm referring to in my second comment. Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.
But I think you probably know that, since you ended this comment by insulting me again instead of responding to my content. It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I'm done with this conversation now. If you need to think me a liar in order to protect whatever your narrative is about all this, okay. If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. The rest of HN can (and has, judging by the flags and downvotes) decide for themselves.