I suspect a large number of the user base here has no issue with X or more to the point, the person that owns X.
You're letting the owner (or your hatred of the owner) define who you're willing to listen to. That seems rather unwise.
Also, we implicitly make these choices all the time, by not listening to Fox, or Pravda, or Al Jazeera or a host of channels, by chosing not to pay, not to bypass the pay wall.
I do not disagree that it seems extreme. It's dichotomous behaviour to me. But, it's human, and normal. I don't personally think everyone who remains on X is evil or against my world view. I just find I'm happier off it and ignoring it.
(I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to school you, we're just making observations from different sides of the fence but the fence is there and we're in agreement about that if nothing else)
Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution, strengthening them. And now that the leftists are on the back foot, deplatforming is going to be even less effective. It's just doubling down on a losing strategy.
That being said, I'm all in favor of blocking X links as HN submissions anyway. They almost always seem to be off topic or low value.
Is it delusion anymore if you're systematically barred from everywhere? The Twitter Files also exist, showing active government-driven censorship efforts.
Twitter seems an MMORPG, anyway; nonessential, possibly entertaining but with a lot of idling, and ultimately a waste of time. Privatizing public services for profit doesn't feel in line with what I understand to be a healthier path, that of public luxury, private sufficiency.
I have no idea whether this occurred through engineering incompetence or as an attempt to strong-arm people into creating accounts, but it hardly matters; either way, links to x.com are nearly worthless.