Musk by contrast has shown that he only cares about limiting speech that damages himself, and he will say or do anything to obscure that fact. He promised not to ban the elonjet account, and then reversed course: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/14/elons-promise-not-to-ban...
He falsely claimed that Twitter refused to take action on child exploitation: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1601302412056473600?s=20&t=4...
He has banned journalists who were critical to him in the past: https://mastodon.world/@kairyssdal/109524620754087441
He has banned Mastodon and Pixelfed's accounts, falsly labeling them as "malware."
And most hypocritically, he claims the reason for all of this is because these people have shared "assassination coordinates" and "doxxed" him, even though first of all, the information is public: https://mastodon.social/@JxckS/109524630642043912 Second, most of the journalists never linked to his private information: https://famichiki.jp/@stopthatgirl7/109522071808584229 There is evidence that his claimed stalker was far from an airport, and worst in my opinion, he has doxxed critics in the past in much more damaging ways: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/37229846-montana-skeptic/... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon... https://futurism.com/the-byte/twitter-employee-flees-home-el...
Twitter repeatedly denied that right-wing users were being shadowbanned. That turned out to be false.
A month ago, someone on HN patronizingly explained to me that Twitter's moderation was "primarily dictated by building an advertiser friendly platform": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33652282 The Twitter files have made it clear that this user's claim, "Twitter's moderation policies weren't primarily dictated by their political views", was false.
If Twitter's moderation was primarily about staying advertiser-friendly, they would've announced their shadowbans publicly, so advertisers would know they were safe advertising on Twitter as a platform. There wouldn't be any interesting revelations to be had.
As for doxxing, I see rules against doxxing as pro free speech. Doxxing doesn't contribute meaningfully to the public discourse. It just intimidates people into silence, interfering with speech exercise.
Free speech is a subtle concept: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/is-it-possible-to-have... A ban on doxxing advances free speech as I understand it. You're welcome to disagree, but I don't think my position is unreasonable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995312
>he has doxxed critics in the past in much more damaging ways
Can you point to a case of, say, Yoel Roth's real-time location staying up on Twitter even after the recent rule change which prevents doxxing?
It appears to me, based on the article you linked, that Yoel fled his home in the wake of ordinary criticism. Not doxxing specifically. Ordinary criticism kind of has to be allowed -- it's essential for our democracy that e.g. citizens are allowed to criticize politicians. But doxxing is where I draw the line.
It seems this is why Mastodon was banned: https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-suspends-mastodo...
Elon is far from perfect. But his child was physically threatened, and he responded by implementing restrictions which I consider to be correct anyways (as I stated -- doxxing is anti-free speech IMO). I think people are making more of this than it deserves. It's good if you have a CEO who's capable of changing their mind.
In any case, whatever happened to the old "Twitter is a private company, they can do what they want" argument? Right-wingers aren't the only hypocrites here.