Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, for one, don't make accounts on services with a hate speech rate as high as current Twitter. I'd consider an account an indirect endorsement.
What is wrong with respecting people's right to have opinions you don't like? Isn't that what everyone wanted?
But since the takeover, there has seemed to be a rather partisan tinge to its attempts to challenge government censorship: the company has notably caved to authoritarian regimes (like Turkey) where it used to challenge it, although it does tend to remain resolute in opposing leftish censorship attempts. Furthermore, the company has gone after people for saying ugly truths about the company [2], going so far as to encourage certain right-wing governors to investigate those people for criminal actions.
The patently obvious mismatch between the free speech rhetoric and the censorious actions is the key thing here, not merely the (perceived) odiousness of the opinions on display.
[1] Do note that being censorious dipshits is a thoroughly bipartisan activity.
[2] Like, they literally admit that what was said is true in their own legal complaint, which just torpedoes everything from day one, without the respondent having to say anything!