I'd expect it does implicitly at least because people must interact with those users differently.
Huh
Before you let that cynicism build up too much, for the record, not all of us Elon+Twitter skeptics have a problem with the $8 thing. You're just not going to hear from any one who didn't have an issue with it.
Related: Is there a quippy term or a fallacy for the (very natural!) habit of treating a random sample of a million voices and expecting a coherent message from them? I feel like it's related but distinct from a strawman.
There is also a reverse no true Scotsman, I've seen referenced as dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Not as catchy as no true Scotsman but you're basically imagining a perfect Scotsman and then attacking them when they don't exist
Conflation might work as well but Im not good at debating
No, it was that “free speech” means private actors are free to make decisions about what content to relay.
Not that everything they choose on that (or any other) is equally good, nor that they shouldn’t be punished in the marketplace (not by the state) for their bad choices.
That’s why in a free marketplace, Elon asserted his free speech to take over Twitter due to their perceived poor management.
Maybe if they had managed more equitably, none of this would have happened. But the market giveth and the market taketh
And that’s a good thing. It is frankly ridiculous that private companies get to decide the public opinion by tweaking their algorithms, it should be managed in a similar way how we don’t allow food companies to put cocaine into their products.
Now it’s all about rules and regulations.
Huh
Don't mistake hate speech, disinfo, racism or whatever you think twitter was violating 'free speech' for as being the right wing. It is not.
Or when they banned people for stating that the vaccine doesn’t eliminate transmission.
Both largely consensus views now.
Very hospitable to alternative viewpoints indeed. Maybe in a bubble