The obvious response to anyone who says this is that the previous owners (and hence management appointed by said owners) similarly had that right… so why be upset about them - ha because their decisions didn’t align with you. Juts be careful, while Musk’s choices today might match your world view you should know that he only looks out for himself and will do whatever is his best interest and so the projection of being fundamentally pro speech is a mirage.
Right now, you conclude that this was a personal vengeance by Musk himself. Whilst this conclusion isn't verified at all. We don't know why the suspension is there. It's in fact unlikely a personal action as Musk has reinstated some of his biggest enemies before.
The "free speech absolutist" quote is bullshit. It's a random interview quote taken out of context, that never applied to running Twitter. You can be a free speech absolutist as a person whilst not applying this to Twitter. For the simple reason that you can't. It doesn't work with advertisers and is downright illegal in some jurisdictions, like the EU. Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
He's also refused to do so based on personal feelings. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/21/tech/alex-jones-twitter-ban/
> Musk has readily admitted that and aims to "piss off both political extremes equally" whilst "elevating the silent 80%".
Sure. He's also claimed "funding secured" to bring Tesla private before, which was found in court to be a lie. I'm not sure why you'd take his statements at face value.
The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association. Something was done before (in a different context with different circumstances) hence that is evidence that this case is exactly the same. Which too is speculation and narrative.
Eternal damnation is also a way to build narrative.
It's all narrative and zero facts. I never said that I take his statement at face value. I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
No; I knew he wouldn't actually do that. Its value is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Musk's approach so far.
> The next thing you do is to make him guilty by association.
With whom did I associate him?
> I said that I would refrain from judgement until the reason for the suspension is given. Which is very basic human courtesy.
The more times someone lies to you, the less you should "refrain from judgement" on new claims.
And if it's never given? Are we to just refrain from judgement forever?
This line is pretty commonly used to cover for "let's just stop talking about it until it's old news"
(I don’t agree with that, but I spent weeks arguing with Musk supporters about this very fact. Now all of a sudden they are saying “it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitter”, which I agree with. But then why did Musk buy Twitter in the first place? Well now we know: to do whatever he wanted with it, not to champion free speech rights! Which is exactly what people were worried about! It’s all so frustrating…)