This is basically X's position – they will enforce countries speech laws, no more, no less.
But OP says:
> Other places such as x/twitter, has some liberty but not very much. Real subjects are not getting through.
So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?
> So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?
I'm saying that posts get removed if they contain certain subjects. Nothing offensive is in them but only facts.
But OP says:
> Other places such as x/twitter, has some liberty but not very much. Real subjects are not getting through.
So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?