I'm sorry for doing this, but I'm going to defer to ChatGPT 4, as it does a better job than I could at explaining why I'm not convinced by what you're saying to believe it's any better now that Musk owns Twitter.
1. Instances of deceit, irrationality, or fallacious reasoning:
- The claim "it's not working with the US Gov to censor free speech that's proven to be true after the fact" suggests that because something is proven true later, it was necessarily censored for being true. This is a post hoc fallacy.
- Labeling disapproved "disinformation" as "literally the hallmark of fascism" is a slippery slope fallacy, as it makes an extreme conclusion based on limited data.
- The claim that Twitter banned "the post for putting up The Laptop Story" and connects it with the FBI "literally lying about 'russia'" makes an assumption of causation without clear evidence.
- The comparison "scary freedom is better than the safety of slavery" is a false dichotomy, suggesting only two extreme options exist.
2. Overt emotional appeals or attempts to manipulate the reader's emotions:
- Using terms like "biggest scandals of our time," "hallmark of fascism," and "safety of slavery" are emotionally charged phrases meant to evoke strong reactions from the reader.
- The phrase "drum roll!" is an attempt to heighten anticipation and add emphasis to the subsequent statement.
- "I understand that's scary" acknowledges the emotional weight of the topic, attempting to resonate with readers who might feel the same.
3. Summary of the Overall Approach:
The text primarily employs emotional appeals and fallacious reasoning to make its points. While it presents some claims as factual, it lacks concrete evidence or logical argumentation to support them. Instead, it relies on emotionally charged phrases and extreme comparisons to drive home its perspective. The text does not align strongly with Enlightenment values of reason, evidence, and logical argumentation. Instead, it leans heavily on emotional and manipulative tactics.
Edit (to add my rational for why I'm not convinced it's any better):
Like ChatGPT points out, the arguments against the prior Twitter and for the new I don't find fully logical or evidenced.
And in my view, the transition of Twitter to private ownership under Elon Musk pose challenges to its role as a guardian of free speech, compared to its time as a publicly traded company.
This change potentially alters the checks and balances in place, as the discourse and recourse now largely rest on Elon's discretion. And possibly on Elon's creditors, which some of them are questionable.
Previously, various stakeholders could critique and influence Twitter's policies, fostering a level of transparency. Now, this dynamic is gone.
So I'm left to take Elon's personal guarantee. To believe his claim that he's a good dictator. That he won't leave his personal beliefs and interests bias his platform. And to believe that it will end up being an overall net positive to truth seeking, and not devolve into another tool that helps falsehoods spread while truth erodes.
Even if he does manage to do all that for some time, being privately held isn't a robust mechanism to protect free speech and promote truth long term. If he worked to somehow democratize, create check and bounds, and all that, I'll change my mind.