This take, which is taken straight from Elon, is plainly hilarious.

They claim to be the last bastion of free speech, but when advertisers exercise their free speech and go advertise someplace else, suddenly that's unacceptable.

Same way Elon goes on and on about how they won't moderate hate speech and will only ever delete content if it's illegal by law, 'cause "otherwise it'd be censorship". But then with the legal and publicly available information posted by ElonJet, that was different and everybody who ever mentioned it was banned.

>Government using force, whitewashed with a thin veneer of an NGO to cartelize advertisers and censor twitter is not “free speech”.

This is squarely in conspiracy theory territory, but doesn't really justify the thought that association between any group of private entities could be compelled.

> You pretended to be unaware of the situation then you straight up lie to push the dishonest narrative.

I think this may have been in reference to another commenter.

> You support censorship.

I literally have spent much of my career on teams trying to find technical workarounds to online censorship in dictatorial regimes. What Musk's Twitter stands for these days is closer to the censorship seen in those places than it was before Musk took over.

I'll also add that what the US Right often decries as censorship is... jarringly hypocritical, at best. I won't get started on here.

> This site literally bans anyone who defends conservative positions.

Summarily incorrect. I don't know that there have been any high-profile bans since I joined, but HN does delete conversations where people who aren't constructively participating in the thread are. It wouldn't surprise me if this thread got removed, for example.

I'm not going to entertain your remaining points since those aren't really substantial enough to even talk about.