BUT I know that the FIREFOX browser is the BEST because it has an AUTOMATIC VPN in it if U always use a PRIVATE BROWSING WINDOW.
@CEOofgenz taught me this firefox trick, as well as VK suggested it a lot.
keep going
๐๐๐๐๐
OK heres a thread I should have done a LONG time ago
HOW TO GET BACK ON TWITTER WHEN U BEEN BANNED
101
here goes
Step 1
U cannot connect Ur last account to Ur new one
meaning NEW PHONE NUMBER, NEW EMAIL.
ALWAYS have a VPN.
keep going
๐๐๐๐๐
BUT I know that the FIREFOX browser is the BEST because it has an AUTOMATIC VPN in it if U always use a PRIVATE BROWSING WINDOW.
@CEOofgenz taught me this firefox trick, as well as VK suggested it a lot.
keep going
๐๐๐๐๐
then U need to create a GOOGLE VOICE NUMBER for Ur new acct.
They will allow U to make a new account with only email, but shortly in they will require U give them a phone #.
USE GOOGLE VOICE, download the app, connect it.
Keep going ๐๐๐๐๐
protonmail
its extremely FAST and they dont require all the vindication nonsense that the [DS] big tech email people do.
Use it.
ALWAYS WRITE DOWN ALL UR NEW #'s and emails and passwords. Keep them organized.
More from Twitter
This is why I'm not a critic of "cancel culture." It's crucial to impose social costs for the breech of key social norms. The lesson of overreaction is that we need to recalibrate judgment to get it right next time, not that we need a lot more bad judgment in the other direction.
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
Every single critic of "cancel culture" just thinks the wrong people are getting canceled. pic.twitter.com/DDIVccj8zV
— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) February 2, 2021
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
๐ฑ Over the past 2-3 years, I screenshotted a ton of random tweets about social/product that made me think
Here they are, in chronological order, w highlights from @nikitabier, @BrianNorgard, @rsg, @Mazzeo, @prestonattebery, + many more
(sry for weird twtr cropping + threading)
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
Here they are, in chronological order, w highlights from @nikitabier, @BrianNorgard, @rsg, @Mazzeo, @prestonattebery, + many more
(sry for weird twtr cropping + threading)
literally have a folder of dozens of my fav screenshotted tweets on consumer social product stuff...and @nikitabier is well represented
— Adam O'Kane \U0001f4ad (@adamokane) February 13, 2021
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
h/t @Mazzeo
