In other words, decisions not made by the company or its "billionaire owner" at all but falsely attributed to them.
> the company under [Musk's] ownership has bowed to government requests from around the world
Under duress! Damned if you do, banned if you don't. In this case they actually did stand up to a government and are of course being criticized for that too.
> [Musk's] crusade has been cheered on by supporters of far-right
> most legal experts see [the judge's] brash tactics as legally sound and furthermore justified
Could this article possibly be written in a more slanted way? To me what's going on with these orders is absurd and obviously shouldn't be allowed in a sensible democracy. Is AP really on the side of the idea that one person should have unilateral, unchecked secret ban power over every social media account in the country?