[brigandish]

> Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.

That wasn't the claim, if it was one. This is what I wrote:

> A Saudi prince and his family control access to the square, along with a group of incredibly rich investors. Criticism of them is strictly controlled.

We know that certain critical speech is suppressed on the platform, part of the problem is we don't know how much (hence Musk's wish to increase transparency). That does not, however, mean that all criticism is stopped at source. Do you reject, for example, the existence of shadow bans? If not, do you think they are only used against trolls?

As to citations… I'm not giving a viva. If you want me to clarify things I write, you can ask in a normal way.

[andrepd]

>Musk's wish to increase transparency

What makes you think that his ownership will increase transparency. He has sued whistleblowers, he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise... Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.

[brigandish]

> he has sued and insulted and bullied people he disagrees with, he employs gilded-age tactics against workers who want to unionise...

Those aren't related to transparency.

> He has sued whistleblowers,

The logic is that Tesla/Musk are suing whistleblowers to silence them because of embarrassing information. Why would Twitter's algorithms be embarrassing to Musk? Or its moderation policies?

> Words are cheap (especially when you're virtue signalling about things which don't impact your bottom line), but actions speak louder.

Exactly, all the more reason to treat words as a special case and not restrict them.