Really, the people who now cry about the Twitter acquisition (unsurprisingly most of the media aligns with them) apparently did not have any problems with the previous censorship. Why? The only explanation I come up with: they were politically on one side. God knows what Musk will do with the social network. Why would it be any different from countless of earlier examples of billionaires acquiring TV channels, news media etc.? Although all attention is on Musk, he was not the only one with the money in that deal. Simply put, I see it as proof that people **love** authoritarianism as long as they're on the right side. Twitter has been manipulated and exploited to an extent only a blind and deaf person wouldn't realize. By all parties, specifically botnets were blatant. There was no reason to use that network regardless of your alignment; only if you actually wanted or needed the exposure as a (political) figure. Overall this time around the whole movement has its roles reversed. And people in the media are on the side of today's crybabies. I mean nothing has happened yet on the platform itself. Staff replaced, so what? I'd not want staff who are hostile to me to remain. Finally, Twitter was in the red and needed restructurization, it's a business and needs to make money. The inflated startup was finally bought by a rich entity. Maybe Musk& Co. will finally make it sustainable. Whether or not it will become a freer platform remains to be seen. History shows that these consumer boycotts don't last anyway, does anyone remember people leaving WhatsApp after the Facebook ~~takeover~~ acquisition? Oh and the media loves the word "takeover" now. As if their favorite toy was taken away. As if it was hostile. No, it's big money in exchange for a company that was a major psyops instrument.