I guess I don't understand what he is fighting for no. Twitter users are free to say whatever they want. Equally, companies are free to spend their dollars in any way they want. If Twitter and its users really want free and uncontrolled speech, they should move to a completely user-subsidised model with no ads. "Uncontrolled" or unmodderated speech isn't always brand safe content, so it seems valid advertisers wouldn't be keen to sponsor that. Maybe I'm missing something but that's how I see it.

Don’t give a fuck about Nazis free speach

Are you serious or did I miss the /s?

You can stop simping for Daddy Musk any time now, he's not going to give you a reach-around.

If Twitter was a "left-leaning platform" before, it was because of the userbase, not the company. In fact, studies showed that the algorithm was more likely to bury posts from left-wing politicians/users and promote right-wing politicians/ideologies than the other way around. The reason right-wing people were being banned was for posting "right-wing opinions/values" - such as antisemitism, racism, homophobia, posting misinformation/lying about elections and other events, and a laundry list of other user policy breaking infractions. And even then, Twitter was often more lenient in what it allowed those kinds of people to get away with compared to other groups. I distinctly remember seeing people posting support for the genocide of trans people and how Twitter responded to reports of the comments violating their rules saying that they weren't violating any rules, while at the same time banning transgender users for publicly calling it out.

This kind of "freeze peach" complaining from the "enlightened centrists" has always stunk of right wingers with shitty opinions who don't want to face the consequences of having those opinions. Just like those politicians who complained about reality having a liberal bias. The First Amendment doesn't free you from the consequences of your words, nor does it cover all forms of speech. Under Fighting Words laws, threats of violence are legal grounds to act in self defense as if they were the actions themselves. If you threaten to punch someone in the face, don't be surprised when the court says that they were justified in breaking your nose. Your use of "woke agenda" - a propaganda slogan used by right-wingers to destroy the actual meaning of the word and instead mean "anybody doing something I don't like" - further down in the comments clearly shows where your political opinions actually fall.

And, no, we actually don't have to let bigots voice their opinions wherever they want. Not only because social media platforms are considered private property, meaning the owners can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't break the law, but because the free exchange of ideas isn't a carte blanche to spout hatred. The free exchange of ideas is a part of the social contract and more like a potluck supper than anything else. Just because Carol showed up with a piece of poop between two slices of bread and called it a sandwich doesn't mean we have to take a bite to know it's a piece of shit. People who break the social contract that keeps society running can't expect to be treated under the same rules themselves.

Plus, if you let the worst people in, they'll simply end up harassing and driving off everyone who isn't a part of their echo chamber. You only have to look at Trump's social network or any of the myriad of other "free speech absolutist" platforms that have sprung up over the years. Every single one of them has eventually devolved into an echo chamber of bigotry. As a wise bartender once said, "If you let one Nazi in, you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because it starts off with one who talks nicely, and then they bring a few friends who aren't as nice, who bring a few friends who are even worse, and before you know it, all the regular patrons are gone and they've started hanging Swastikas on the walls."

Tis a Free Market BAYBEE

Do you not have the faintest understanding of what market competition is?