It seems a lot of people are pointing out the massive amounts of hypocrisy Elon is displaying, as well as how fickle & fragile the concept of free speech is when it comes up against the personal opinions of a billionaire.
Plus a democratic vote, which is definitely not what a Twitter poll is, controlling speech is exactly the thing that many on the (if we’re using labels) “right” objected to once a truly democratic vote (within a flawed process) delivered a government that they didn’t want. True freedom of speech is a fixed principle, not dictated by the whims of current powers, votes or Overton window.
As Peter Kafka (heh) wrote over at Vox:
> But I think we’re better off if we face reality on reality’s terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he’s going to run it based on his whims. Because he can.
* https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/16/23512993/doxxing-elon-...
How accurate do you think it is to reduce human virtues, considerations etc to a model which simpliy splits the populations in two? Stop perpetuating football-team politics.
Also, the twitter account is still banned.
In many other countries the political parties lie in different areas of the spectrum, with the US’s “left” still quite right leaning compared to many other countries. Where there are more political parties with influence it is more likely that politicians will seek to bridge divides to bring over supporters, rather than just polarise their current supporters to vote more. There are countries where left leaning communities will swing to the right if convinced to do so. But they are still left and right and if you compare the fringe parties I think you’ll often find the same polarisation and combativeness, just less so as it doesn’t win the middle. Basically the more the middle is in play, the less polarised the political parties tend to be (obviously with exceptions).
( #NotAllAmericans, of course - but it's certainly a sizable and vocal chunk )