>As opposed to letting advertisers be our mental jailors by chilling the discourse Chilling what discourse? To which specific discourse and topics are you ref

>As opposed to letting advertisers be our mental jailors by chilling the discourse Chilling what discourse? To which specific discourse and topics are you referring? I'm not being snarky here, I don't use Twitter/X/whatever or other "Social Media" sites like FB/IG. Nor do I use any federated ActivityPub[0] sites. As such, I'm really not sure what speech you believe is being "suppressed" by advertisers. What's more IIUC, Musk/X are claiming that advertisers should be required to advertise (and pay for those advertisements) on Twitter/X. Unless I'm missing something important, that makes absolutely no sense. It would be like McDonald's suing you because you don't buy their food, or Tesla suing you because you bought a Chevy instead of a Tesla. And so, assuming I'm not missing anything important (am I?), the whole premise is risible[1]. No one owes Musk/X/Twitter any advertising revenue, and forcing folks to pay to run ads where they don't want to run such ads is ridiculous -- or is it your contention that advertisers (or anyone else, for that matter -- since if they can be forced to do this, so can you or me) must pay Elon Musk? I'd be very interested to hear how such a position is compatible with capitalism and a free society. Do tell. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risible https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risible Edit: Added the missing links. Added reference '[1]' to one link.