Who can't?
I know plenty cancelled by Dorsey. They are back!
That... says much about the company that you keep, really.
Also, you're still holding to your seemingly pathological need to crap on Dorsey with poor cause. Under Dorsey, Twitter's moderation was effectively bare bones as it was. That Musk decided to gut that isn't actually some grand thing.
Nor are Musk's various decisions like choosing to moderate "cis" and personally getting involved with banning left-wing accounts. Naturally, you wouldn't care about "them" being silenced, though, as you've demonstrated repeatedly, much like you don't care about Musk changing Twitter so that X actively hides various data, especially after it was shown that the data shows unpleasant truths.
As I've said before, it's fine to be happy that what you consider to be "your side" gained advantage, but lies and dishonesty about what's actually being done aren't healthy.
Women are united against their own, a remarkable entrant in the surprise of the decade contest.
That's quite the strange leap from the facts provided, but I suppose that it's unsurprising that you would jump to a hobby horse of yours, even if it's not really relevant and quite dodges the unpleasant actual implications of the facts provided.
Easy example of an actual potential partial explanation - the proliferation of porn bots on X because Musk sabotaged Twitter's defenses against them is more offensive to women, which leads to them leaving the platform at a rate higher than men have been leaving X.
You just utterly ignored everything like that, though, and jumped straight to women being anti-women. Not exactly trust-inspiring, to say the least.
I joined the Women's Rights Party NZ because they unpack that dismal phenomenon.
X is the savior of women's campaigns in the West.
Wesley Yang says he can't reach women 18 to 25.
They have been indoctrinated and I avoid conspiracy memes.
...You may claim to avoid conspiracy memes, but you sure seem to be falling for various problematic CTs like the ones you've invoked when it comes to that political party.
It's not particularly easy for new political parties to break into an already well-established political environment, especially when they're trying to sell things that most people don't want as much. An isolated single main issue culture war alone isn't actually the number one concern for most voters (especially in a country where the issue in play isn't actually all that bad in practice), let alone a recently founded Political Party that has little infrastructure, little funding, and nowhere close to as much actual work done to support it as established parties do, before even touching on the actual size of the demographics that it could be expected to be appealing for (a rather sizable portion of the questionably sized strongly anti-trans demographic is decidedly not pro-women, after all). Creating CTs to blame for the issues you face (like getting
less than one thousandth of the vote) may be easy, but it's rarely reflective of reality.
It's understandable that X is useful to that party, sure. It's super low cost, after all. Saying things like "X is the savior of women's campaigns in the West" is seriously misleading at best, though. It may technically be true, but that's more like saying that "There's a tree in the forest!" and expecting that to be treated as if it were some profound truth and that that's all there is to say about said forest or even that tree.