> Why do you think it needs to be stretched very, very far? I don't think it needs to be stretched at all.

The initial sentence "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" states that Musk isn't participating in censoring other people. The sentence you quoted states that Musk "voices his own political and ideological views without a filter", which doesn't have anything to do with Musk censoring other people.

While both talk about censorship, one talks about "the feds censoring people", and the other talks about "Musk censoring himself". These are completely different things.

It does not state that. Censoring yourself does count as censoring, and is therefore included in the concept of "censoring operations". You're putting words in the commissioner's mouth when you tack "people" on to it.

That being said, Musk is also refusing to censor other people on Twitter, so your point is moot regardless.

If I try to follow your understanding, it would mean that "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" is about Musk openly sharing his views, not about censoring other people on Twitter. Can you share the documentation about censorship operations targeting Elon Musk?

I cannot. At this point, you are clearly not approaching this discussion in good faith or you struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way I am unable to help you further.