The second point is just confused. It isn't about if people would do it, it's on if Musk should be doing it. His antics include boosting misinformation like vaccine skepticism and fringe political theories, that's obviously wrong and worth criticizing.

Almost nobody can afford a competing offer.

You’re seriously sticking up for some billionaire who bought what was effectively a public square of the internet to turn it into self promoting crap?

Are you also one of those people who said it was going to be great for free speech before he started banning journalists who criticized him?

>Wouldn't you (and 99% of people) also spend money to amplify your opinions far and wide if you had such money?

No, I'd have much loftier goals to amplify my opinons than microblogs if I had $80b in my pocket. I could fund my own movies, games, TV series, etc. I could lobby congress to change laws on a worldwide scale. I could fund my own educational systems and shape minds the way I want to.

Using it to own a blogging platform for power's sake is absurd and also small-minded. I argue Trump did a good portion of damage to the modern discourse and he just had to be a user.

>the entire reason most people use social media is because they want to amplify their opinions far and wide.

I don't use Twitter, but my goals online are to communicate with like minded people. Not literally everyone. I don't need nor desire a soapbox, because it implies my ideals and methodologies are novel and capable of change. Not really.