X Is a White-Supremacist Site

America is a white-supremacist country.

I know that sounds controversial, but that's the ideals of the president elect of the country, who won the popularity vote.

the USA (and canada, and australia, and new zealand, and many more) are settler colonial states that were born out of mass genocide dictated by white supremacist rhetoric.

these states are white supremacist to their core
It was still a white supremacist country under Biden and all previous Presidents and it would have been so under Kamala. This isn't something that gets changed by elections.
- That's true, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the majority of the population voted for someone who does have white-supremacist ideals - whereas Biden and Kamala do not.
America, the state, is white-supremacist and has been since birth. Absolutely. Although that's not good logic for explaining how. I doubt most voters for Trump did so because of his or their racist views, there were plenty of other policies (sorry, ideas and themes) Trump platformed on that appealed to them.

The amount of Democrat supporters again surprised at how non-whites can possibly vote for Trump on a non-trivial scale is a testament to why it's important to understand voting patterns beyond race ideology, beyond "Trump is a disgusting racist, only a white supremacist would vote for them.", especially if you're on the ground trying to organize your community to create the positive changes neither candidate can offer.

Yes. And no one's going to do anything about it.

Most people are too lazy and thoughtless to stop using it .

The engineers that work there certainly aren't going to stage a coup.

And no one's going to just do violence to Musk.

The engineers that work there certainly aren’t going to stage a coup.

What engineers? Musk fired all of them when he first started.
- Surely there's a couple people still working there.

Well yeah duh, it's owned by an overt white supremacist.

Another author who doesn't make the important distinction between moderation and censorship.

The sky is blue.

No, we dont need another instance of the same story of corporate greed enshittifying a platform like its ging to happen with bluesky.
- I was actually referring about how obvious the title of the articles is

I think it's shit that some leftists continue to use Xitter. If all social media is a simulacrum of public space, Xitter is the one where this is clearer. It is not a dispute space, is literal owned by a nazi.

Freedom of speech is good. White supremacists or any other group ideological supporters will always find a way to communicate and share their message, regardless of the century, technology, or censorship. Frankly, doing this openly on X/Twitter versus some obscure unknown forum or encrypted platforn is a positive. Social media as a whole is susceptible to ideological campaigns from groups and other countries, not just X/Twitter.

Twitter is not a free platform. It actively suppresses the voices of the left and protects the far right.

I do sincerely support free speech. I think it looks a lot more like the Fediverse than Twitter.
- Additionally, fascists need these safe spaces to convince themselves that their opinions are the majority. They don’t feel emboldened to act otherwise.
- Sure, I don't object to your statement of Twitter not being a free platform, and I did not claim it was. Conversely, other social media have been also known to suppress the right and protect the left. Social media can "lean" so to speak. They are provately operated companies after all. I value free speech nonetheless.
You are so fucking wrong. I have never understood this logic that because people are doing things out in the open that it's a good thing. They are popularizing their ideas. More people are exposed to them when they're out in the open. Had they been operating in some obscure forum, they would lack the advertising of their ideas to others.

For what possible reason could this be "positive"? So that the rest of us are aware of their first amendment protected hateful ideas? What good does that do anyone? We just elected one of them to be president of the United States. Allowing hate speech to bloom out in the open tempers our reactions and slowly seeps into our minds as propaganda.

Freedom of speech is, in the US, something that the US Constitution promises will not be restricted by Congress. It is not something any private company is required to protect. I would argue that private companies have a responsibility to its users to ban all hate speech and report substantiated threats to law enforcement.
- For example, from a US-based perspective, a "positive" is that law enforcement agencies and the thousands of social media monitoring tools they utilize look at Twitter and other big platforms. LEO agencies have had for years the channels to monitor posts and request instantaneously from those companies supplemental information on the user or post that is being investigated. LE will be out of luck if they were attempting to immediately investigate a user on an obscure white supremacist forum hosted in Russia. That website owner and its servers would not be in jurisdiction to respond to that request.
  
  Also, please see my other reply 1 minute before yours regarding private companies being able to ban, suprress, etc. I agree with you that private companies can run their own ship how they please, whether in the best interests of profit or ideology.
Tolerance of intolerance. Look where that got us.
Musk does not endorse free speech at all as he has shown
Freedom of speech may be great in the abstract, as an ideal, but unfortunately it isn't very useful when speech platforms are controlled by the owning class. Our speech means little compared to the speech of national TV channels, news outlets and restricted social platforms. The utopian marketplace of ideas becomes a rigged supermarket.

I highly recommend the book Manufacturing Consent, which explains some core systematic factors which shape the US mass media (also applicable to other countries) into essentially a largely-homogeneous echo chamber without the need for legally censoring opposing speech.

Frankly, doing this openly on X/Twitter versus some obscure unknown forum or encrypted platforn is a positive.

Hardly - they're doing this to spread their message, not to have a good faith discussion and expose themselves to other viewpoints. It's purely predatory, and removing their platform reduces their impact. Yes, they will always find ways to communicate but they struggle more to find ways to advertise and recruit without public platforms amplifying them.
Rights are not handed to us by God or by Nature, they are legal constructs, created by people. They are not immaculate or immune to criticism or alteration on the basis of what we think would be better for human society. White supremacy must be smashed to its very core, and part of accomplishing that task is making sure it's as difficult for white supremacists to recruit and congregate as we can possibly make it.

It's bizarre idealism to think that opposition to white supremacy will be overcome with no loss of enthusiasm or membership, that any interference actually has zero effect and we're just better off letting them do what they want.