Twitter loves itself some censorship (see CENSORSHIP: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter Agree to Ban ‘Hate Speech’ in Europe and Google/Twitter Officially Agree To Censor Speech in Germany). Now apparently the company's co-founder, Evan Williams, is sorry they don't censor more. Why? I'll give you a hint...it rhymes with Schmonald Schrump.

“Without the tweets, I wouldn't be here,” he told the Financial Times last month.

To which Twitter's co-founder says: Sorry about that, world.

Evan Williams, who still sits on the company's board of directors, recently told the New York Times that he wants to repair the damage he thinks Twitter and the broader Internet have wrought on society... “I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas, the world is automatically going to be a better place,” Williams told the Times. “I was wrong about that.”

“If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry,” he said.

It gets even more pompous...

In a commencement speech at the University of Nebraska this month, Mr. Williams noted that Silicon Valley has a tendency to see itself as a Prometheus, stealing fire from selfish gatekeeper gods and bestowing it on mortals. "What we tend to forget is that Zeus was so pissed at Prometheus that he chained him to a rock so eagles could peck out his guts for eternity," Mr. Williams told the crowd. "Some would say that's what we deserve for giving the power of tweets to Donald Trump."

Don't get tripped up on his words. Evan Williams isn't apologizing for anything he did. He's apologizing for allowing other people to exercise free speech through his creation. Which is as self righteous as it gets. One might even say he's achieved the final level of "enlightened" douchebaggery.

According to his own words, this lad fancies himself a god who bestowed the power of 140-character social media unto the world. Were it not for him, we might still be in the Dark Ages; the Myspace Days, if you will.

Now he's upset that terrorist accounts run rampant on Twitter. Just kidding. He doesn't say he's regretful because ISIS operates on Twitter. Or that it's too bad radical Islamic terrorism has spread through the medium. He says that freedom of information may be morally wrong precisely BECAUSE it didn't give him the exact result he desired.

He's angry that his social media platform enabled American voters to get to know a candidate sans traditional media. And then those voters voted for that guy he doesn't like. Disrespectful. Throw yourselves at the feet of the Twitter founders, mere mortals, and pray for mercy!

This is a perfect example displaying why liberals actually don't support free speech. They support it ONLY when they think they are the resistance, righting supposed wrongs in the world. Clearly, they can't even begin to fathom what "wrong" actually means, let alone that they may be at fault. So when freedom leads to a result that's different than what they wanted? They turn on the same free speech they claim to support.

Sorry leftist whinebags, but there's no caveat to the First Amendment that undoes free speech when you don't like it.

Oh, and in case you had any doubt as to who the real extremists are...

NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT’S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.