That sounds like you seriously do not understand the point?
I specifically said:
> There's no fancy good way out with this, for anyone, much as I'd like there to be. There's no "your side or my side" distinction here, nor would there be if the world were really so parochial as US politics.
Even if you gave me personal control over everything, even to my own standards I wouldn't be able to get this right. I know what buttons push me, but I cannot rewrite my mind to be free of them — do you know what buttons push you, or do you think yourself immune?
Thinking yourself immune is the easiest way to get fooled.
> These are who you want to be your judges for free speech on online platforms?
If I wanted an example of a straw man, what you wrote would be a strong candidate.
Hint: one of my previous partners was literally a communist, and proud of it. I'm not myself, because I think communism makes the same fundamental error as free market capitalism about the human condition and how the powerful exploit basically anything, not because I think any particular corporations are aligned with my interests.
> You being outnumbered by different opinions is NOT noise/propaganda, but a natural function of democracy.
1) I didn't say "outnumbered" I said "jammed".
2) Jamming can be many things, but it's by definition noise.
That noise can be many things.
Mere disagreement isn't sufficient — I find disagreement quite engaging, hence the fact that I'm replying to you at all.
For other categories, of noise: spam jammed the unbounded free speech of usenet and is a big part of why it fell out of use, and constantly threatens to do the same to email despite increasingly capable filtering;
Also consider the algorithm behind YouTube: 75% of what it recommends is stuff I actively get annoyed by, and last I checked all bar one of the remaining items that I was interested in were literally already on my "watch later" list. That is "noise" which is neither spam (because I was not counting the adverts on YouTube) nor was it political.
There is also "noise" in the sense of being constantly insulted: some thrive in this, others do not, and those who do not will leave places which allow this. Musk is free to do whatever he wants (within the law) regarding the rules of conduct on Twitter, that doesn't mean the people who don't like it will bother putting up with it — and indeed, they don't put up with it, they leave.
This is why 4chan, for example, never became what Twitter was before Musk bought it.
Nevertheless, my specific example was you getting spammed (in the non-commercial sense of the word) by someone saying "hello" on a tight loop, which ought to be clearly non-political, non-commercial, and as far as possible from an insult.
If someone did that to you, on any unfiltered stream, you literally would not be able to use that stream. Doesn't matter the service or the context, if it was someone in real life saying that constantly in your ear then your brain would eventually filter it out for you… or you'd snap.
Furthermore, "being outnumbered by different opinions" is not special to democracy, but also commonplace in dictatorships where the opinions are manufactured — in exactly the same way you complain about prior to Musk having bought the site. The exact claims you make work against you, the exact arguments you make can be used in reverse to claim that it is Musk not Disney et al who are judging you, e.g. with: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/x-cisgender-slur-cis-elon...
If "majority" really meant "free from bias", it would mean the exact claims you just made about being outnumbered prior to Musk's takeover would force you to acknowledge that you were in fact the minority before hand — but unlike your argument I do not think (or rely on) the idea that "free from bias" is even possible.
> or you can keep being ignorant about it and call it propaganda while the emperor obviously has no clothes
Bonus irony: in that story, the population (and the emperor) was cowed into silence by shame, the majority claimed to see clothes that were not there.
> Trump won the elections despite the majority of the mainstream media being against him and pro Kamala (propaganda or not). He won because that's what the majority of people wanted.
If either of the claims "propaganda or not" and "because that's what the majority of people wanted" were correct, then your other claim that twitter is "a platform capable of influencing elections" would be false.
To the extent that Twitter is capable of influencing elections, it is one of many tools of dictators — and those outside your country who want to influence your politics.