I think we should still put a lot of the blame on ourselves, but really, our political institutions shouldn't be on these centralized social medias if you ask me. They should be running their own instances of something like mastodon, so that it's not an American tech company that gets to moderate Danish politicians. Which isn't really a right or left leaning point of view where I come from.
Frankly saying that Musk burnt $44 billion on a website that makes no money could also just being laughing at the whole situation. I think it's been sort of hilarious to follow, but being Danish, we do have a nice tradition for enjoying watching successful people fail. That being said, you may also be right, but I think it's a bit of stretch to boil this down to political bias of the sort, because there is frankly a bunch of reasons to laugh at twitter right now that have nothing to do with politics.
>guy that played himself into burning $44 billion
That seems unquestionable. Twitter wasn't worth that price when he actually took control or he wouldn't have tried so hard to get out of the deal. It is impossible to put an accurate value on Twitter today, but it seems obvious that its value has gone down even further under Musk's leadership.
>a website that makes no money
Maybe hyperbolic depending on your definition of "makes no money", but it hasn't turned a profit in years so it is fair to categorize it as "a website that makes no money".
>just so he could force all its users to read his shitposts
Maybe you object to the "just" there and he had other reasons to make the purchase, but this general accusation seems true[1]. He is at least partially motivated by vanity and getting other people to read his weird jokes.
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/14/23600358/elon-musk-tweets...
Barring the $800M legal settlement which took them to $220M loss, they'd have made $580M profit in 2021. Things were definitely on the upswing.