Twitter was extremely censored on certain topics, moreso than I had previously seen on a social network, with the exceptions of Facebook and Youtube. I agree, though, that the insertion of a subscription model that renders all accounts that do not subscribe as virtually invisible, is another form of censorship - but one that is applied in a blanket way to anyone that doesn't have enough money to pay for the subscription. So we have gone from censoring specific groups/topics to a wider limiting of free speech according to economic status. This is essentially a move by a technocrat that benefits those of his ilk.
In other words, Twitter censored thoughts based on their content and their potential to upset certain corporations and technocrats. The new model allows a certain amount of this, but limits the visibility of it according to the economic status of the speakers - resulting in those with less money being negatively effected. The claim is that this is the only way to fight spam, but when it comes to important societal topics it is often the poorest people who are ignored and receive the harshest end of things. Many times people will not want to pay money to a technocrat such as Musk out of principle, so we are left with a skewed and biased environment, where 'Musk-like' people have a louder voice and even so, still, certain topics are censored anyway!
Yes, education and outreach are key for Hive. I am reminded of the race between the hair and the tortoise.