Twitter is a landscape which enables people to broadcast information and ideas.

This also offers an opportunity for those with agendas and capital control/influence to broadcast and amplify those agendas. This would be very important to those entities (real or hypothetical), for in order to move forward with those agendas, it would be necessary to garner popular support.

One way to do that is to inundate messaging in front of people. This accomplishes two things, A) it magnifies an issue, making it look like more of an issue than it actually may be, and B) individuals with no formed opinion on an issue will likely move along with the heard. All of this facilitates adoption of an opinion and has an added consequence of a feedback loop, since new adopters of an idea sometimes become defenders of that idea, and help to continue inundating the message.

This is more effective if discussion is censored to the benefit of those promoting an agenda. If people with contrarian opinions are outright banned for expressing those opinions or those opinions are algorithmically "shadow-banned," it purifies the opinion that is ultimately delivered to the average Joe (she/her), increasing the likelihood of converting her to the desired opinion.

If Musk's intentions are to be believed, and his taking control of Twitter would reduce censoring discussions, it would serve as a disrupting agent to the promotion of potential agendas.

This is all hypothetical, of course. However, it would explain why the same people who would normally be worshiping him as an icon who has arguably done more than anyone to bring green energy into the world are actually decrying him as an evil billionaire and right-wing tyrant.