It is not topics that are censored, it is behaviour

I'm not seeing anything in your comment that actually refutes the substance of what Wong said.

Volunteering to show your own oppression receipts isn't evidence against the idea that people from many political poles thing the platform is institutionally biased against them. It actually reinforces his point. Particularly when he takes pains to point out that anyone running this kind of circus is always going to find out that no single stable system or rules are going to be adequate to address behavior that surrounds discourse with limited accountability.

I frequent at least one sub where trans-skeptical discussion is certainly present (/r/JordanPeterson , in spite of the fact that it's largely a political fun-house mirror now more than a venue for discussing his work). I see that kind of discussion regularly. You may want to consider that something else is going in the sub you're referring to. Particularly considering it's one in which apparently both lowering the age of consent and trans-skeptical topics are a staple (the potential behavioral red flags almost throw themselves).

> ratio of trans to aoc posts that get removed is like 10:1).

What's the ratio of trans posts that don't get removed to those that do?

What's the ratio of shitposts where the frame is ultimately about how one should behave towards trans people vs posts that are courteously principled with the obvious point of exploring what gender/sex actually are and how might know?

What's the ratio of worldview to discourse?

It’s discussed in the thread. At one point (and maybe it was wrong) such findings were weaponized to the detriment of the community — i.e. vaccines are dangerous.

I agree though with your point that he’s being a bit sanctimonious. It’s not just about community civility — there’s an overarching “we are doing what’s best for world” attitude that Facebook and the like are also employing.

I didn’t get a sanctimonious tone. I got a frustrated/tired one. Like a warning from someone who has seen it happen 100 times and can’t put a lot of energy into it anymore.

Just “I’ve been there, this is what’s going to happen, sorry but it really sucks.“

There’s a couple of guesses I can make. First of all a lot of people are really tired of Elon Musk and don’t wanna hear about him. In general that’s where I am. So they flagged it (I didn’t).

Then there’s the hard-core Elon fans who don’t want to say anything bad about him. They probably flagged it too.

Some people are probably tired of this specific topic. There’s been a lot of stories about Elon Musk and Twitter over the last two days or so, why do we need one more? Everyone’s going to say mostly the same things anyway. Elon is right. Elon is an idiot. He’ll save twitter. He’ll ruin it. I hate twitter. Blah blah blah. So they flag it.

He provides a very unique and useful perspective, but it’s not clear from the headline. That probably doesn’t help. Sorry.