If the platform is filled with the same category of political speech, it directly flies in the face of the narrative that this type of political speech is being banned and that there's a chilling effect. You're taking a single anecdote that requires ignorance of all all surrounding evidence to prove a point that you want to prove.
You appear to have an overwhelming desire to see this obvious outlier as indicative of a larger pattern that clearly does not exist. A conclusion this article clearly alludes to and wants you to come to but doesn't do on it's on because it's so provably incorrect.
Just because this administration has done something in the past doesn't mean that every time that thing happens, this administration is responsible for it.
I didn't blame the administration at all. I don't even think this is specifically about political speech. You're ascribing a lot of beliefs to me that I haven't expressed, and assuming we have a similar experience of social media which flies in the face of everything we know about filter-bubbles and algorithmic content.
You appear to have an overwhelming desire to see this obvious outlier as indicative of a larger pattern that clearly does not exist. A conclusion this article clearly alludes to and wants you to come to but doesn't do on it's on because it's so provably incorrect.
Just because this administration has done something in the past doesn't mean that every time that thing happens, this administration is responsible for it.