He articulates the problem well. I don't know either way whether it is correct whether there really isn't any agenda or bias in how Twitter is moderated, it might be true, it might not, more likely it is just not that simple because there is push and pull forces at work inside of Twitter ae well and its administration is not just some homogeneous hive mind. But it doesn't really matter anyway.
I think where he goes wrong is that he seems to indicate that he thinks there is a solution, that will allow gigantic monolithic social media platforms with millions of billions of users to exist with no tension about moderation policies and free speech limits, and all it requires is that everyone on the whole platform just be civil and change how their brains work and suppress their individual cirtlcumstances that led to them behave in manners that are destructive to civil discourse and do it all at the same time.
Well, that won't happen. Maybe the solution is that we don't need platforms that are as big as Twitter or Facebook. Maybe the solution is for people in leadership positions at these companies to recognise that humans are not ready to be put into an environment like that. Which basically comes down to societies and nations designing the market incentives to make disintegrating these too-large giants of companies an attractive proposition. Though how that could be. I don't know. The more immediate solution for Twitter would be, for Elon to buy it for fifty billion dollars, take it private, then liquidate it and tell everyone to go to fedi.
Maybe I'd better go read the post again.