You take care of that part later, I guess. The whole point of the shower orange IMO is to go primal on it and tear it open and chow down without concern for mess or eating it efficiently. Leaving the peel to pick up afterwards probably just gives the rest of your shower a nice citrus aroma.
Going on about how “censored” everything is and how “certain political ideologies” are the only opinions allowed and anything else is “insta-banned” reeks of right wing extremism (hence, dogwhistles). I know I’m sticking my neck out to say so but given nobody has yet provided a single receipt/anecdote to back up their claims I find myself super skeptical at the idea that they’re presenting even a marginally balanced version of the truth right now. There’s a reason “certain political ideologies” (ie. the “eradicate trans ideology” and “destroy wokeism” crowd) are not accepted in decent online circles. There’s no room for that kind of hate, and I’ve never met someone on that side of things willing to hold an honest conversation on it. They just want a platform to be hateful.
This strategy reminds me of right-wingers I’ve dealt with in the past who complained about being banned from Twitter for ‘simply saying “learn to code”’. If you understand the context, the harassment, kicking someone when they’re down, the dogpile they contributed to, the absolute hate campaign their seemingly innocuous (piece of a) comment contributed to, there’s completely sensible reasons why a ban like that took place. But I know the playbook; these guys thrive in the darkness. The moment I start prodding into the nuances, they pretend they were trolling the whole time and basically ragequit. If they control the messaging then they can make themselves sound reasonable by tearing away context and presenting a whitewashed and often unrealistic version of what happened.
I could be wrong; for all I know this guy’s talking about truly god-awful subs like r/TrueRateMyFace (I forget what the name was and it doesn’t deserve to be remembered, as the mods explicitly support men posting their exes on there and actively ban commenters who “overrate” the scores they give out, while pretending they’re working with an objective measure of true beauty) but I haven’t experienced this egregious political de-platforming they’re talking about and it’s telling that they didn’t go into any level of specifics except to keep harping on the “censorship” point. Not every opinion or argument deserves a platform.
Your example is unambiguously plural. It’s not a good illustration of “they” creating confusion.
It’s truly not a problem. I could contrive a reason to talk about a couple (they plural) and a nonbinary person (they singular) and end up with sentences where you don’t know which I’m referring to, but the exact same issue happens if I’m telling a story about two “he” or “she” subjects. And it’s solved in the same way.