This is being echoed throughout the thread but Mastodon instances whose TOS is similar or stricter than Twitter are also being banned. This is why I feel it's anti-competitive. The thing that makes yours a false equivalence is after looking up Rumble it appears to be a centralized. This is more like if Microsoft decided to block servers without the Windows Server headers citing the use of Linux servers in illegal activity. Windows server likely does make up a small amount of CP servers but that's not something within the control of those software competitors. In both instances the only link between illegal content and the vast majority of legit users is using a competing software.

Musk comically overpaid for Twitter and can do anything he wants with it. My (and I think most peoples) problem is the hypocrisy displayed by Musk and his sycophants. I would respect Musk a bit if he dropped the free speech charade and simply said it's his playground and he'll do whatever he wants.

I don't think YouTube has ever claimed to be a public town square or a desire for free speech absolutism.

> Musk comically overpaid for Twitter and can do anything he wants with it.

No, he can't violate anti-trust (or any other) laws.

Obviously he can’t violate the laws, but as owner of a private company he has a very wide berth with what he can do. Not linking to a competitor is not violating anti-trust here.

> Not linking to a competitor is not violating anti-trust here.

Of course it is and regulators will come down that way as it's even more blatant anti-competitive behavior than many other cases in the past.

I mean, that's the thing: He can. He just shouldn't. And he doesn't have enough people (or, most likely, anyone that he'll actually listen to) telling him what he shouldn't do.