[ruszki]

> this tends to resolve itself as there is a market opportunity to create a better product

If the market is fair and leveled. Which is not the case without intervention as we know for hundreds of years at this point. And governments clearly started to no intervene even when their own laws would require it.

> which lifted its restrictions

This is categorically not true. Twitter home page is massively censored and coordinated. And this was quite obvious around Charlie Kirk's death, when normalization of racism was heavily promoted, and without a doubt promoted. Not before that, and after that was so obvious that they touched the algorithm for that (I have a far right racist fake account there to monitor this specifically). Also from Musk's own words, when Grok didn't lie for them. And since controversial topics, like racism, alt-right, etc spreads better, "lifting restrictions" mean exactly to form public opinions towards these. The market is not fair even towards ideas for a long time (and probably it was never true).

[marysol5]

Twitter was an easy one to get a ban from, just by saying "this is racist" or "racism is bad" and you're gone.

Went through quite literally hundreds of accounts through it.

[bko]

It's censored and there is a ton of controversial opinions being spread?

Do you see how these two statements are in conflict?

What is being censored? You don't like some speech but that's proof that restrictions on speech have been lifted. Get your narrative consistent at least. There's either vile speech due to lifting speech restrictions or there are still restrictions so these opinions are suppressed.

The charlie kirk stuff wasn't censored. You can still find it there. I see daily conspiracy theories about his wife being involved. Before the acquisition you had a satirical newspaper banned for referring to someone by their biological sex. Do you see the difference?

I guess you could have the opinion that normie moderate speech is censored but thats just silly.

[ruszki]

> It's censored and there is a ton of controversial opinions being spread?

> Do you see how these two statements are in conflict?

It's not in conflict. Both can be true at the same time. Also, there is nothing which is not "controversial".

> You don't like some speech but that's proof that restrictions on speech have been lifted.

Still, nothing in conflict. I can have problem with some speech, and I can support full blown free speech at the same time. Also, there is literally nobody who supports uncontrolled free speech. Not even, who lie to themselves that they support that.

> The charlie kirk stuff wasn't censored.

It wasn't "censored" in the sense, that you can find whatever you want. That was true on Twitter always in every single topic, even before Musk. It was censored how you can find it. Which is the case even by government censorship. You can find Mein Kampf even in countries where it's completely banned. You can find weed everywhere, the difference is only how.

[bko]

I see crazy stuff relating to conspiracy theories about Kirk every day. It's not censored.

If you don't see the contradiction around censorship while seeing a ton of controversial opinions, I don't know how to convince you. It reminds of the quote "It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."

[ruszki]

Maybe this will help, but I know that your cognitive dissonance will find something else:

- There are 100 controversial opinions - 50 is censored - you can see 50 all the time

Also, you ignored all of the explanation which explained to you why your “censorship” and mine are different. And make your whole question nonsense. Because you predictably used “leftist”, and I anticipated that the problem is empathy.