@meowski
> they have different roles
Sure they do, one is a messaging protocol and the other is a microblogging site but decentralisation is a very important core principle, if you need centralised authority either for granting you free speech (the way you see it) or to do censorship — you might not want it. I just don't see how you might want it for instant messaging, but not for microblogging, if you want something like Twitter, you'd rather be using something like Telegram.
> don't want people to be able to read their posts
What was wrong with letting people decide for themselves who can or cannot read their posts? If you think it's fine to do it to "piss the libs" — you aren't neutral, you are just as opinionated and you do not stand for greater freedom, you also want to be the one setting the rules for others — you just have a different vision of what rules should be.
> again, libtards
No matter how I look at it, I just don't see it — you might not like them for criticising Musk, but their point about the removal of feature is at least valid. Whether this ruins the platform or not is of course debatable — but it's their opinion and if you stand for freedom of speech, you should be fine with them having it.
Under this angle their being opinionated is more fair: they just express it — you might not like it, you might not like them for having such an opinion, you might not like Matrix because of it — but that won't prevent you from using it, they can't tell you how to run your server. Unlike Musk who CAN tell others what they can do. Yep, we all know why this is the case: he has money in the game, but if we admit that, let us not pretend that he's above the fray: unlike them he not only has an opinion, but has the power to influence others — that's what comes with centralisation.
And that's the way I see their article: Elon Musk removes the feature that some people might want and they don't like it, which would not be possible on decentralised platforms => decentralised platforms win. You might not like their wording, but it's still valid criticism and a valid point FOR decentralisation — disregarding that just because you like Elon Musk and they criticise his *choices* (but not his opinions) doesn't seem rational.
All in all, I'd rather be on their side here than I would be on his.
> charging money and demanding phone numbers has to have cut down drastically on it
Correct, but measures being taken does not mean they were effective. Such measures might be effective to prevent regular SPAM, but both studies I'm referring to were about disinformation campaigns — hard to verify their numbers, but again, I have no reasons not to trust it. When state/political actors are at play such measures as requiring a phone number or a registration fee would hardly be effective, unlike persons of small businesses they CAN afford it.

@m0xee @newt