"<a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LiDtW0qZbY&amp;t=4m51s"">4:51</a> is presented as a social media company not doing enough to protect privacy.  <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LiDtW0qZbY&amp;t=5m53s"">5:53</a> follows it up as a jovial jab on how a social media company doesn't like free speech.  I mean it really doesn't matter either way but that has to be cognitive dissonance at it's finest that I had to point it out lmao",(reply>), free speech doesn't mean incite violence. You also cannot target specific people for hate speech either. There is a line. and companies should uphold it. Censoring satirical jokes, criticism is against free speech. having a twitter bot that tracks a person is hazardous to safety.,(reply>), Except that one social media company (Meta) said that they wouldn't permit incitements of violence on their platform and did, and the other platform (Twitter, or really just Elon in this case) said that they wouldn't take down an account and then did. So both stories are about social media companies going back on their word, so I guess I don't understand your point?