Seems like a reading comprehension issue. Difficult as it may be, try to re-read in good faith with your programmer hat on.
To me the key part of the article is this bit:
> he seemed to suggest that the changes would be walked back, at least in part. “Please stay tuned while we make adjustments to the uh .… “algorithm,” he tweeted.
> Absurd as Musk’s antics are, they do highlight a tension familiar to almost anyone who has ever used a social network: why are some posts more popular than others? Why am I seeing this thing, and not that one?
I actually saw this unfold in real time as he was tweeting about all of this in the open as it was happening (not just the milk meme) -- a lot of people tweeted at him that the algorithm was b0rked and he was replying and saying they were tinkering until they arrived at a place where, according to the very article, 90 percent of his and other peoples followers actually started seeing tweets from people they followed. This simply makes sense, no?
I don't see a smoking gun where he over prioritized his own tweets maliciously. They even deboosted his magic number as part of the cowboy debugging session.
Recall the original claim I was replying to is:
> It is a megaphone to amplify his own voice and the voices that support his viewpoints.
I just don't buy this narrative, forgive my skepticism. You can go look at his reply timeline and see for yourself and draw your own conclusions no need for the verge editorializing.
I understand some people view him as a malicious actor but going out of your way to ascribe the least charitable interpretation to everything is just not convincing to people who aren't invested in the politics. You're even directing this attitude towards me for not automatically agreeing with this viewpoint.