“Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted and demonetized”

That's a good point. But I think also what mattered are how the content policies are enforced. I think Musk misread the situation. I do believe Twitter was biased about bans previously but that is because its user base wanted those bans. Social media apps tend to have a specific target demographic. In that sense, Twitter was not really in the "public town square" business but the memes and speech business of a specific demographic. It's not surprising there is an exodus from Twitter now that Musk has shown no loyalty to that base. Yes, it's petty but I've seen far worse on the internet. If Musk wanted something different he should have spent less money making a new app.

I am not trying to provoke a flame war here either actually if it comes off that way. I think the business of social apps is trendy and you have to know your audience.

>Musk is a free speech absolutist, by his own admission.

I don't think his concept of free speech absolutism matches yours. Given the other things I've heard (something about moderation teams with diverse voices, and this news about deboosting) it seems more likely that you're arguing against a strawman here.

>It's a contrived example, but despite that free speech absolutism allows for it.

Does the free speech absolutism you're arguing against allow for sonic cannons? Doxxing? Lighting burning crosses on people's yards? If so, again, it's pretty far away from any form of free speech I've ever heard a free speech advocate actually... advocate for. I'm asking this seriously; can you point me to anyone honestly arguing for that as a social ideal?

Edit: In fact, this topic roused some curiousity in me, so I went to look up what the actual philosophical roots of "free speech absolutism" were. The first result[0] is rather creepily relevant, discussing Elon Musk's bid on Twitter and his self-admission as a free speech absolutist. Very relevant to your arguments are the following passages:

> Free speech absolutism has its roots in philosophical theories dating back to the 17th century, but it was first discussed as a defined principle by the 20th century free speech advocate and philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn.

> His writing focused on the United States, and much of his thoughts were put forth in the context of American constitutional law. In fact, the very idea of “absolutism” – that there are certain absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or religious matters – is an American idea. In theory, a free speech absolutist would be extremely hesitant (or refuse) to draw a line between free speech and hate speech in most contexts, and in all contexts where the speech could possibly be considered political speech.

> This commitment to self-rule, in Meiklejohn’s view, justified and formed the basis of the constitutional right to unfettered free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and warranted its absolute nature, meaning it should not be weakened or watered down to bend to other social values.

> However, his understanding didn’t extend to private speech about issues not of public concern. So, while your right to publish your views about a social issue is safeguarded, even if others may take offense, Meiklejohn believed that you can’t rely on free speech protection to shout casual abuse at someone on the street. (emphasis added)

So yes, even the original, definitive free speech absolutist disagrees that your example is allowed by the principles of free speech.

[0]: https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...

Does anyone outside of Twitter actually know what the criteria was for banning Tweets and Tweeters?