[matrix87]

> That said, forcing folks to endorse speech they don't wish to endorse... is wrong

Ehh, suppose advertisers didn't want to have ads appear next to tweets by users of specific ethinicities or religious affiliations? Do you think they should have a choice there, or should they not be given one?

I mean, maybe at social platform level granularity it's just economic freedom of association. But you made a generic argument (or at least that's how it reads)

[nobody9999]

I think folks should follow the law. I'll let you extrapolate WRT "protected classes"[0] and the like, although (since IANAL) I'm not sure how such would apply in the case of placing ads. Especially since one can place ads to be shown only to 18-34 year-old [men|women|non-binary] with a specified educational attainment, a specified floor for income, specified marital status, parentage status in a specific zip code.

All that said, we're talking about a specific platform here (X) and you're moving the goal posts, which just smacks of bad faith. This is your last feeding from me. Now get back under your bridge!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group