Where's your sources, numbers, methodology? I mean anyone can make a kneejerk statement based on their perception (read: bubble), but that's not science.
I'd think libertarians would love twitter, deplatforming is the free market at work and the government has no right to make them do business with anyone they choose not to
Twitter should be judged by the way it governs its platform. And from libertarian perspective it's governed poorly. Sure, under current laws they can get away with deplatforming in the way they do now, but there is nothing commendable or desirable about it for libertarians specifically.
And one might think liberals, putting liberty above order, would be aghast at silencing opponents to maintain order, and yet here we are. Our political theater has gotten pretty weird. The whole thing is looking more and more like unprincipled tribes vying for power.
Except I keep hearing about it constantly, everywhere, including Twitter. And yet I haven't seen a single one being banned for discussing fiscal policy, less regulation, conservative views on social programs etc. "Conservative voices [being] silenced" are almost always some variation of spamming evidently real-world damaging conspiracy theories or clear ToS violations.
I didn't say conservative - I said dissenting. Although I imagine many conservatives have learned to self-censor so they can remain part of the conversation there.
How about asserting that men and women are different biologically? Is that a conspiracy theory?
Or is it simply a dissenting viewpoint from the group-think of Twitter that was silenced...
you would think from the amount of republican/conservative accounts they have banned that they have some AI or parser dedicated to banning these types of voices