Odd how they were happy to use Twitter when it was controlled by their political fellow travelers.
I’m not sure what Jack Dorsey’s politics are but don’t you think the platform has gone down the toilet since Musk (and his Saudi pal Prince Alwaleed bin Talal) acquired it?
Anyway, I’ve never really thought it was an appropriate platform for politicians.
The point about Twitter in the pre-Musk era is that it was not used to push any particular political philosophy, nor were people censored or removed for expressing political views - only if they strayed into extremism or overt hate speech.
Musk has aligned himself very firmly with Donald Trump and also exercises direct control over who can and cannot say things on Twitter - that makes the platform very far from impartial.
He might as well merge it with “Truth Social” and be done with it. 
So this is bobbins then?
So you believe Musk? All moderation is open to criticism. For example I think shutting down “Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, who was an opponent of COVID-19 lockdowns” probably wan’t a bad thing.
Like Trump’s drink bleach probably wasn’t a good idea to propagate either.
An article by a Fox News contributor on a website run by a close associate of Rudy Guiliani who has also been criticised for editorial interference in favour of Donald Trump, and quoting claims made by Elon Musk?
Not exactly impartial journalism I would say - in fact quite bobbinlike… 
So, anything written by someone you don’t like = automatically bobbins?
Good to know.
No - something written by somebody with an obvious political bias (in whatever direction) is not to be taken as gospel.
As of course you already knew. 
Steady on 
Would you buy a secondhand car from an associate of Rudy Guiliani?
If the paperwork checked out and my mechanic was happy with the state of the car after a thorough inspection and drive test, yes.
You’re right, you wouldn’t trust him as far as you could throw him
Or anyone really…
Yes, it’s the equivalent of a drive by shooting.
However …
They don’t actually mention any brands as far as I can see, so it’s conjecture. But as we all know, over the pond all that matters is making a buck.
Even if some do return, it’s hard to see a path to recovering the 80% of the $44B price that has already been lost.
It’s clearer and clearer that making a profit was not the motive.