Yeah, wasn't Fakebook a DARPA project (or something like that) called "LifeLog"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog

LifeLog coincidentally ended just before Zuckerberg launched Fakebook "in a college dorm room", or whatever.

Back on topic: I have read some of the posts on Twitter about mysterious shadow bans being placed on recently unlocked accounts. Apparently, nobody at Twitter 2.0 can figure out how those shadow bans were being put on the accounts.

They have been diving into some of the deep code of the system, and found out that the whole Twitter engine is apparently designed to shadow ban "wrong think" in an insane number of different ways.

They were thinking they might have to rewrite the core from scratch, maybe... and now this intellectual property dispute is dropped into the mix.

Very, very interesting.

Edit: another question - if the core of Twitter code does not actually belong to Twitter... what happens? Does Twitter owe the rightful owners a metric buttload of money? Does Twitter go bankrupt or out of business? Enquiring minds want to know...

Yeah, wasn't Fakebook a DARPA project (or something like that) called "LifeLog"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog

LifeLog coincidentally ended just before Zuckerberg launched Fakebook "in a college dorm room", or whatever.

Back on topic: I have read some of the posts on Twitter about mysterious shadow bans being placed on recently unlocked accounts. Apparently, nobody at Twitter 2.0 can figure out how those shadow bans were being put on the accounts.

They have been diving into some of the deep code of the system, and found out that the whole Twitter engine is apparently designed to shadow ban "wrong think" in an insane number of different ways.

They were thinking they might have to rewrite the core from scratch, maybe... and now this intellectual property dispute is dropped into the mix.

Very, very interesting.