You seem quite bothered enough to write a response for someone who 'does not care.' And I'm not here to find "sympathizers." I'm here to show the truth to people who suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I have shared countless examples, and have many more, of the incongruent nature of Elon Musk and X. Every time he promotes his platform as a "free speech" platform, there are dozens of people who are unfairly banned.
And by the way, what makes you the judge what is an is not a "correct venue" to share these legitimate concerns? From what it sounds to me is you're just looking for an excuse to defend anyone who happens to be close to Trump without an ounce of critical thought. It's no secret in Trump's previous administration he installed saboteurs (whether it be willingly or blindly.) If this is supposed to be "The Great Awakening," then it's important to not place blind faith into anyone, (and it is also important to recognize when you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance when contrary evidence is revealed to what you believe.) While Trump has proven himself to be worthy of a level of faith, the people surrounding him hasn't, certainly not Elon.
You are confusing DogSoldiers' principle of not dog piling on someone with their none use of social media.
If your stance is that because DogSoldier doesn't care about using social media he thus shouldn't care how many people sh1t on Elon then, fundamentally, you are emotionally responding and care very defensive thus leading to your attempt at strawmanning them.
Its in the code its not Elon. You will always have a vote and or report that will allow for bans that should not happen. Its how they are reviewed and unbanned that shows the true nature of the platform.
You seem quite bothered enough to write a response for someone who 'does not care.' And I'm not here to find "sympathizers." I'm here to show the truth to people who suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I have shared countless examples, and have many more, of the incongruent nature of Elon Musk and X. Every time he promotes his platform as a "free speech" platform, there are dozens of people who are unfairly banned.
And by the way, what makes you the judge what is an is not a "correct venue" to share these legitimate concerns? From what it sounds to me is you're just looking for an excuse to defend anyone who happens to be close to Trump without an ounce of critical thought. It's no secret in Trump's previous administration he installed saboteurs (whether it be willingly or blindly.) If this is supposed to be "The Great Awakening," then it's important to not place blind faith into anyone, (and it is also important to recognize when you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance when contrary evidence is revealed to what you believe.) While Trump has proven himself to be worthy of a level of faith, the people surrounding him hasn't, certainly not Elon.
You are confusing DogSoldiers' principle of not dog piling on someone with their none use of social media.
If your stance is that because DogSoldier doesn't care about using social media he thus shouldn't care how many people sh1t on Elon then, fundamentally, you are emotionally responding and care very defensive thus leading to your attempt at strawmanning them.
Its in the code its not Elon. You will always have a vote and or report that will allow for bans that should not happen. Its how they are reviewed and unbanned that shows the true nature of the platform.