> No you did not, you responded with an unrelated fact that "right news" (which is widely over categorized in these research papers BTW) is the most shared link

Yes, on Twitter, which according to you was "Extreme left authoritarian" until recently. Odd that leftist authoritarians allow right wing content to dominate their platform.

> twitter employee based censorship was largely in one direction

Any evidence for this claim?

> the fact that twitter policies were written and enforced in one ideological direction

Evidence? Twitter's own data says that this is not the case in the links I provided.

> No your link proves and supports nothing

My links (there were two) prove and support my point - you haven't read them though.

You: "...Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon"

If true, then we would not find much, if anything, that was not "extreme left authoritarian political opinions" amongst the detritus of "political twitter", right?

And yet, when shown that not only did there exist content from the political right, it was amplified more than content from the political left, you reply:

"you responded with an unrelated fact"

Let's try it this way. Let's say I make a statement that the birds at my feeder are isolated to crows. If you then point to my own videos which show not only that there are many other kinds of birds, but these other kinds of birds eat the most seed from it, what should I reply? "Oh, I'm sorry but that is an unrelated fact"? Or perhaps, "That proves nothing, how do we know the other birds were not brought there by the crows?" Or how about, "The fact that there were other kinds of birds at your feeder does not refute the fact that you prevent non-crows from coming to your feeder." Etc.