Why Does Elon Musk's Potential Twitter Takeover Scare the Media So Much?
"I think it's very important for there to be an exclusive arena for free speech," says Musk.

Elon Musk's offer to buy Twitter, turn it into a private company, and correct what he feels is the company's waning commitment to free speech principles has drawn both praise and criticism. Many people who share Musk's dissatisfaction with the platform—including Republicans and conservatives who think it discriminates against provocative right-wing speech—are eager to see Twitter in his hands. At the same, many supporters of the establishment media say they're worried that Musk's approach would mean more harassment and disinformation on the platform.
Twitter's board has given every indication that it sides with the traditional gatekeepers of information and that it is inclined to fend off Musk's bid. The company adopted a poison pill approach late last week. This is a well-known corporate tactic intended to thwart a potential buyer. In this case, Twitter would flood the market with additional shares available for sale if Musk's stake in the company reached 15 percent. Effectively, Twitter plans to dilute his stake and make it much harder for him to reach the 51 percent threshold. And if Twitter is ultimately interested in Musk's offer, this gives the board more time to consider it, and time as well to look for other potential buyers.
We thus have a pretty good idea what the board of Twitter wants: It wants to hold onto power. The board's offer to make Musk a member was probably born of a desire to control and quiet him; as a board member, he would have an obligation not to publicly disparage the company, and thus he would no longer be able to tweet his thoughts about all the ways Twitter should be different.
What, exactly, does Musk want to change about Twitter? He offered some thoughts during a TED interview last week.
"I think it's very important for there to be an exclusive arena for free speech," said Musk. "Twitter has become sort of the de facto town square, and it's really important that people have the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. One of the things that I believe Twitter should do is open source the algorithm and make any changes to people's tweets, if they are emphasized or de-emphasized, that action should be made apparent so that anyone could see that action has been taken, so there's no sort of beyond the scenes manipulation."
Later in that interview, Musk endorsed a feature many people have demanded: a Twitter edit button, so users could alter tweets after sending them. Facebook has this function, so it must be workable in some sense. (On Facebook, a little note appears showing that the post was edited.)
Musk also talked about removing ads for premium subscribers and providing other perks for those willing to pay more.
It's hard to argue that these proposals lack merit. More transparency would be a massive improvement: It's critical for users to know why and how the platform decides to reward and punish certain tweets. The ultimate goal should be to devolve content moderation to users. Instead of Twitter deciding for users what it thinks they ought to see—what it thinks is dangerous, or true, or safe—the platform should give individuals more options to curate their Twitter experiences.
Musk appears to share this vision. Yet many progressive critics are acting as if him taking control of the company would be the most horrible thing to ever happen. Literally.
Here's a Salon writer saying Elon Musk's takeover could cause a death blow to the free world.
If Elon Musk allows Trump back on Twitter, it will be a death blow to the free world.
Trump's Big Lie will spread like a virus.
I discussed the danger of Trump's Big Lie for @Salon. Like Hitler's Big Lie, it must not be normalized, lest fascism return.https://t.co/kGEKF6ei4C pic.twitter.com/rZRP1RUZxo
— Matthew Rozsa (@MatthewRozsa) April 14, 2022
Axios writes that Musk has gone into "full goblin mode" and is acting like a super villain.
City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis implied that Musk's takeover would be akin to the rise of Nazi Germany.
Normal fucking stuff pic.twitter.com/iTS5o9MTKJ
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) April 14, 2022
These people are desperately scared by the mere possibility that a wealthy person with somewhat different politics—and a somewhat more favorable disposition to unfiltered speech—is going to tweak their favorite toy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Statists of all stripes are terrified of independent thinking, because they perceive most of humanity of being incapable of thinking correctly. Therefore the great unwashed masses must be guided.
It's dead simple.
The free market is deciding how much speech is acceptable and rural hicks and Drumpf supporters who hate homosexuals, Jews, and blacks don't deserve to have a voice in modern America!
Yes, because anyone who does not support the progressive agenda 100% is literally Hitler.
Now you're getting it!
That's the formula, but I'd go one step further and qualify that as the "establishment" progressive agenda. One that includes neocons, corporatists and the Davos crowd.
Free market is the way to deal with all things, social and economic. The ultimate democracy that the left can't deal with, here, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia, Catholic Church ... the list goes on.
LOL, while you are a sick and disgusting troll, you still manage to be pretty funny and make me laugh.
If Elon Musk allows Trump back on Twitter, it will be a death blow to the free world.
Literally!
This has always been a retarded talking point, but if the free world cannot survive one man's mean tweets, it doesn't deserve freedom.
Beyond that, if liberalism cannot survive it's illiberals, then it too doesn't deserve to survive.
If Trump truly is THAT dangerous, banning him from Twitter is useless.
This is the sort of thing that would only show up in a dumb parody movie. "The only thing standing between me and world domination is the slim possibility that I'll be banned from Twitter! But as long as I'm not, CHAOS WILL REIGN! Muahahaha!"
*puts pinky to corner of mouth*
Trump was never the real target, the proles were always the actual target.
Trump was just in the way.
These people are either insane or completely corrupt (probably some of both). Or they don't think much of democracy and people in general. If you think that the only way to have democracy is if you carefully control what information people have access to,
I'm not going to finish the sentence. Fucking people.
They are no where near insane. They have been executing a careful plan to control and then destroy the USA since at least the sixties. In order to kill democracy in the daylight, they have to control the information flow, and fully indoctrinate a generation. So of course, anyone who is at all a threat to their propaganda machine must be cast as the spawn of Satan and denounced publicly. Democracy is their enemy.
The elite global leadership is insane in a megalomaniac way. Their supplicants and minions are insane in ordinary retarded ways.
Checks out
It actually goes back to the turn of the 20th century.
If you think that the only way to have democracy is if you carefully control what information people have access to,
You don't get the desired outcome by telling the whole story.
Fuck! Do we have to die again? I am getting tired of keeping track.
First it was ‘rona death , now Twitter death.
Pfft. Us Boomers have died due to global freezing, the over-population famines, and global warming (at least 3 times) before Covid and Trump. Don't even notice much any more.
You get used to it.
Remember when we ran out of oil in the 70s?
Good times.
Forget about Y2K?
And the hole on the ozone layer and everyone getting skin cancer? And acid rain? And everyone was going to get AIDS by the end of the 20th century? And don't forget the nuclear wars Reagan started.
Really? Do we also burn Mein Kempf, various manifestos and anything else you disagree with?
The concept that people need to be protected from alternate views is straight out of Orwell.
So, burn Orwell's works. Problem solved!
ha!
It's really no big deal. Just our progressive #Resistance allies pretending they're not on the same side as billionaires because there might be one billionaire who only agrees with them 95 percent of the time instead of 100.
#OBLsFirstLaw
Democracy is already hanging by a thread. Imagine what would happen if everyone were free to share their opinions and unvetted breaking news stories without expert approval!
You are absolutely correct. Max Boot stated it best when he said that democracy needs more content moderation to be safeguarded against populist demagogues.
There's no better possible name for a neocon authoritarian shill like him, than Max Boot.
I dunno, "Jack" might have worked well...
Jack is his middle name.
Democracy dies in the darkness of freedom.
Words and ideas are dangerous.
Selling to Elon would show just how entrenched The Swamp really is. They don't care about the money, they want control of the information.
the answer to the headline's question is self evident
What fearmongers fear most is questions.
Bingo!! And we’ll reasoned alternative answers.
“We must chose truth over facts”
SleepyJoe
Exactly! That’s why Mormons ignore or censor non-Mormon’s questions.
Why won’t you discuss your faith? Because deep down you know it’s fucking stupid, but you wanna force your “lifestyle” down other’s throats.
Fascist.
Don't you have a widow to dox, you anti-Semitic sociopath.
More transparency would be a massive improvement: It's critical for users to know why and how the platform decides to reward and punish certain tweets.
We know why! lol
If you counter the regime narrative, you are in danger of being banned.
If you send death threats to as so called "TERF" you're fine.
If you question the integrity of an election where a democrat lost, no problem. If you question the integrity of an election where the regime is happy about the outcome, youc an get banned.
it's all very simple.
And don’t say what is a woman unless you are a biologist. Even then, be careful.
Because "The Media" as we're describing it here does not have a favorable disposition to free speech.
And perhaps just as important, the media (as they call themselves) does not have any disposition to reporting via ancient methods: walking a beat, seeking and interviewing primary sources, traveling to events, etc. To them, losing Twitter is losing the means of "news" production.
They won't "lose" twitter, it will just have a wider range of opinion and commentary.
So, all is lost.
You might not know how righteous people think.
How will ENB write Hit n Run every morning?
>>supporters of the establishment media
who outside of the establishment are supporters of the establishment media?
Mindless Donkeys.
You called?
My understanding is that with the departure of Dorsey, Twitter's board controls very few shares. If he fails with a takeover, maybe he can start a proxy fight and get the current board expelled.
Based on the chart in this story, it's approximately 0.1%
https://notthebee.com/article/both-elon-musk-and-jack-dorsey-slam-twitters-board-as-it-adopts-poison-pill-strategy-to-keep-elon-at-bay
That was part of the fiduciary duty story.
Someone ran the numbers and the buyout bonus above the current price was worth an average of less than $30k per board member. Their jobs pay $300k per year.
Of course they don't want Musk taking over. It directly hits then in the pocket.
It's not just that Elon Musk is such a danger to free speech and democracy, it's that he's an ignoramus that doesn't even understand content moderation. At least that's what Mike Masnick said. Or that's what ENB said Mike Masnick said - I didn't bother to click on the link because I believe it.
Stupid is as stupid does.
ENB is 100% Libertarian!!! You're just a conservative jackoff that wants to bring back Literally Hitler! - ChemJeff
Welch was pushing Masnick's fascist garbage on today's roundtable as "brilliant", and KMW said, and I quote, "a highly censored private platform is a good part of free speech".
This crew isn't just unlibertarian, they're antilibertarian.
Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin
nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany.
It's refreshing he at least acknowledges we're living in Weimar Germany. So what did he expect the second act would be?
It's refreshing he at least acknowledges we're living in Weimar Germany.
The clumsy, ahistoric/acultural tapdance of using the word 'nightclub' rather than 'beer hall' leads me to believe he either had no conception of a second act, or knows full well.
Like ordering 3 beers with the index, middle, and ring finger.
No matter how bad Biden is, he hasn't yet given us Weimar levels of inflation.
"...he hasn't yet given us Weimar levels of inflation."
Hey he's got another 2 years and 8 months to go.
And at this rate Biden inflation rates will be approaching early Weimar rates by 2024. Zimbabwe by 2028.
Yes, the very first thing Hitler did once he was in power was to eliminate restrictions on free discourse.
Perhaps the board could introduce a 'self-destruct' mechanism with some sort of doomsday device in case Musk shows up in the boardroom.
I'd be very surprised if there's no "kill switch".
Because words = power. If you control language, and determine what is and is not discussed, you've already won more than half the battle.
Exactly! Don’t use their language. Call a woman a woman, and a trans a trans.
That "trans"; that is the part of the car that changes gears, right?
Yep, and once we had only manual trans. Now I hear that automatic trans is the in thing.
In the future, everyone will be trans for 15 minutes.
In the future, the slaves will be engineered to be neuter at birth.
That would be a tranny.
It allows you to park the car right beside the master bedroom.
But, every now and then, you need to change the gender fluid.
Don't forget: Silence = Violence!
So, putting aside the question of direct election fraud, is the Hunter Biden story suppression enough to call the election stolen yet? Certainly was collusion among major media outlets with the intent of keeping real and relevant information from voters to improve their favored candidate's chances.
And let me see if I have this straight: These people are freaking out because they think that suppressing the views and statements of one of the most popular politicians in the country is necessary to protect Democracy? Do they even spend a second thinking about what they say?
Do they even spend a second thinking about what they say?
Do you feel better if the answer is "Yes, many."?
No.
And how would you feel to learn that for many Democracy! champions, that is the only thing they think about?
Ya, ya, I'm not that naïve. Just reacting.
most popular politicians in the country is necessary to protect Democracy?
You're talking about Joe Biden, right? Remember, Biden got a greater percentage of the black vote in Detroit than Obama did. How's that for popular?
*drops microphone*
Honest question: Did Joe play an active part in Hunter's shenanigans? This is a subject I haven't done much research on because I really don't care, but maybe someone who does can enlighten me. I see Joe shaking hands with people who aren't there and wonder if he ever had a clue as to what his son was up to, let alone was involved. Reminds me of when Bush was both a chimp and an international criminal mastermind.
Honest question: Did Joe play an active part in Hunter's shenanigans?
Do you mean Burisma or the prior ~44 yrs. of shenanigans? Reminds me of how Bush was just a figurehead for the shadow government run by the brain trust of the former CIA head, his Dad, the evil businessman, Cheney, and the evil puppetmaster, Karl Rove.
I mean during the election, when the Hunter story was suppressed, did Joe have anything to do with what his son was doing? If not then what's the big deal? Candidates should be judged by the actions of their children?
If Joe did play an active part then that's a totally different matter.
I mean during the election, when the Hunter story was suppressed, did Joe have anything to do with what his son was doing?
I'm honesty trying to figure out how the Vice President's son, a known crackhead and established half-wit, ended up on the board of a Ukrainian oil company in a country Biden was balls-deep in regards to internal investigations by that nation's top lawyer.
I agree, the connection is tenuous.
That's not proof. Hunter could have just thrown his dad's name around to get where he got with no action on the part of his father. Speculation is speculative.
That is among the dumbest retorts.
"Trading on his name" does not mean people think it is cool to have some relative of a famous person around. It means Daddy is on the take. That is all it means.
Look at the other board members... all sorts of western politicians and connected folk. No real expertise... but connections.
They are on the take. It really simple.
Assuming your implications are correct, that Hunter only got into his position because his dad is rich and connected.
Isn't that how the system works? The children of wealthy and connected people are taken care of by wealthy and connected people?
It's not like it's unusual or anything.
You don't need to be able to make a case in court for a story to be worthwhile news. I'm not going to claim at this point that Joe was definitely involved in some criminal corruption. But the appearance of corruption gets reported all the time. And if this story had broken in 2020, maybe we would have gotten some answers.
Fair enough.
It's not unusual for a wealthy politician's progeny to end up with a high paid position for domestic companies such as being on the board of Expedia, or running their parents' foundations etc. Or even end up being correspondents for major media companies such as NBC. Often times these children are probably marginally capable, if not occasionally exceptional in their education or talents.
While everyone knows that these are more than likely patronage positions-- it's on the unseemly end of unseemly for a colossal fuck up and meth addict to end up with a $50,000 a month board position of an Eastern European oil company in a country with disputed territory between an old adversary of the US and the defined borders of said country.
If I were the Vice President and my son (who I just bailed out of jail) called me up and said, "Dad, this dude from *rustling of papers* Boorismuh just called me and wants to give me a job.. I think it's in Ukraine. I wouldn't have to do much, just sort of show up on a zoom call and..."
I'd cut him off right there and say, "Lemme get you a job with MSNBC as a producer... don't touch that Burisma thing with a ten foot poll because if the press gets ahold of that it'll be all over twitter."
We're also ignoring the fact that this wasn't just a 'kept quiet' issue. We impeached Trump over this. It's one thing for someone to get a patronage position because they had the same last name, this was not that.
Especially given the fact we've got people with no connection to political patronage sitting in prison because Trump encouraged them to 'peacefully and patriotically' exercise their 1A rights. I wouldn't lose any sleep if, in a mad flurry of chopping off the heads of the hydra, it turned out that this was just a regular snake. What's the bad outcome? The next VP's fuckup progeny is unfairly prevented from getting a shady deal with a foreign government on specious reasoning?
God damn sarc. There are literally bank transfer statements from Chinese corporations to members of bidens family. There emails where hunter discusses sending money to his dad and saving some for the big guy. Office keys made for Joe and Jill for Hunters office. Tony Bublusko directly saying Joe talked business with his dad. 10 million im income through a corporate cut out that Joe said was from books sales... of 60k books.
You are pretending to be interested but can't take 5 seconds to educate yourself but instead dedicate time dismissing things you claim to know nothing about.
This is why people call you a fucking leftist.
And yes I spelled Tony's name wrong. Information is there if you care for more than defending the left.
Hunter's email to his kid said something like: "Be glad you don't have to give half of your earnings to your dad like I do." And that's clear evidence of corruption - bribe-taking.
.. ended up on the board of a Ukrainian oil company in a country Biden was balls-deep in regards to internal investigations by that nation's top lawyer.
And why is there a war there? Coincidence?
Really?
Oooooh now I get it! Hunter caused Putin's invasion! It's all Biden's fault!
Well, it IS Biden's fault (among many others) but no, Hunter did not cause the invasion. But he was an ingredient in Putin recognizing Biden's inherent weakness and vulnerability in the regional political situation.
"I agree, the connection is tenuous."
That they shared bank accounts and Hunter helped pay Joe's bills, I think the connection is pretty vital.
The big deal is suppressing a story because it might make your guy look bad.
I get that. Totally. But my question is what the actions of the son have to do with the qualifications of the father.
There are a million reasons why Biden was a terrible candidate and is a terrible president.
I just don't see this as one of them.
Depends on how involved Joe was. I'm not sure, as I've said. But there are some emails I've seen that look potentially pretty bad for him.
But I do agree, even if he was involved in some shady dealings, his actual positions and performance in office are plenty adequate reason to disdain him.
I think this is more of a media scandal than a presidential one.
I think this is more of a media scandal than a presidential one.
aye
I think this is more of a media scandal than a presidential one.
And? As I indicate above, there's multiple heads to this hydra. I don't see a problem if, in lopping off all these heads it turns out that Joe/Hunter was just a regular snake. We shouldn't have Vice Presidents and sons skirting the Emoluments Clause for the media to report favorably on in the first place, whether they actually report favorably on it or not. I can't see any case that defends the status quo that doesn't pretty directly say, "I'm OK with Russian Oligarchs buying the Presidency, as long as it's not Trump (or Musk)." which is beyond fucked up and indicates an utter breakdown of even the basic principles of representative democracy.
I suppose 10% for the Big Guy is not a problem.
So you don't find it interesting? lmfao
Again, not just makes your guy look bad but also makes his opponent look like he shouldn't be impeached for saying we ought to take a closer look.
I mean during the election, when the Hunter story was suppressed, did Joe have anything to do with what his son was doing? If not then what's the big deal?
Nobody has a right to be presumed president until proven otherwise, including Trump.
If FDR had a fuckup for a son who'd gotten in good with the Nazis or the Soviets and we impeached FDR, what's the problem? Did we thwart the will of the electorate? Violate jurisprudence? Given the raking we gave Trump for the Emoluments Clause, shouldn't we give Biden the same or worse? As I indicated to Diane Reynolds (Paul.), there might be a case if you were talking about Chelsea having a seat on the board at The Clinton Foundation, but this was closer to my purely hypothetical and totally biased framing of FDR's son being in good with Nazis/Soviets than it is to that.
According to the emails and texts that have been reported, in several cases discussions of financing breakdowns include a cut for "the big guy". The partners involved in the deal are on record stating "the big guy" is Joe Biden.
In another article that went out of...Vanity Fair, maybe? They tell a story behind one set of texts between Hunter and his secret service and how Hunter used the wrong credit card to pay a hooker. They noted it was a shared account, and they needed to get the transaction pulled so that the government didn't find out.
In an article in the independent it notes that emails between Hunter and his tax man show that Hunter and Joe were paying each others' household bills. At the point where Hunter is paying Joe Biden's bills, then Joe Biden is receiving benefits from whomever pays Hunter. That is straight up violation of government ethics.
As with the Clinton Foundation who was receiving donations from countries and partners while the state department was reviewing their work (only to see those donations mysteriously go to near zero as soon as Clinton lost the election) I doubt that real "proof" will show up, even if someone in government can be bothered to search for it. But to me, it strains credibility that Hunter could be getting payouts for YEARS without something coming from Biden himself. People don't spend millions of dollars without an ROI.
And for what its worth, I now work in a Too Big To Fail Bank, which means I am heavily regulated. If my kid were found to have been working for a vendor that I interacted with, I'd be removed from the account, and if I couldn't I would be expected to quit, or have her quit. That everyone shrugs about this wrt the most powerful man in the world is disgusting, if only because how they would treat me in the same space.
It sounds like there is reason to think so. But whatever Joe's involvement turns out to have been, it was a legitimate news story that was actively and deliberately suppressed in a way that I cannot believe wasn't coordinated.
And Joe seems to be losing it pretty bad now, and has always been a shady asshole. But he wasn't stupid and out of it his whole life.
Was it cool when the media went after Trump's kids?
The adult ones involved in his campaign and administration, sure.
K, was Hunter involved in Biden's campaign and administration?
To me it seems like a big red herring.
Could be. I hope it gets properly investigated so we can find out. If there were shady dealings in Ukraine and China, I think we probably want to know.
How shady, with what evidence, and at what proven cost would it have to get?
Like, if Biden had appointed Hunter to the head of the NIAID and he gave $600K to the Wuhan Institute of Virology would we look into it and at least fire someone then or do they still get Presidential Qualified Immunity by proxy? How about if he appointed him to be in charge of spying on millions of Americans?
For a topic discussed for 3 years now here you sure do enjoy being ignorant.
It is not just Hunter, it is the whole family. Whenever Joe was involved with regulating a country or industry, they all cashed in. None of them needed any experience in the field or industry in question. The only qualification they needed was the last name Biden.
When they communicated among themselves and with business interests, they made it clear that the customer was "investing" in Joe, and that Joe always got a cut.
These people are freaking out because they think that suppressing the views and statements of one of the most popular politicians in the country is necessary to protect Democracy? Do they even spend a second thinking about what they say?
The left has made a business of redefining words to mean their opposite.
Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. So a tolerant person is duty-bound to be intolerant of Jordan Peterson.
Justice with an adjective means injustice. To make things just, injustice must be initiated upon certain people.
Equality means that everyone who agrees is equal, and everyone else is inferior.
So free speech must mean censorship is required to promote tolerance, [insert adjective here] justice, and equality.
Later in that interview, Musk endorsed a feature many people have demanded: a Twitter edit button, so users could alter tweets after sending them. Facebook has this function, so it must be workable in some sense. (On Facebook, a little note appears showing that the post was edited.)
What about us? Huh? Reason? Hint hint...
https://twitter.com/a_centrism/status/1515669034599129088?t=NwzLvAOewvnATzjU19lmvg&s=19
America's speech problem is mostly a female problem.
[Poll]
I think most of our trend towards a suffocating, do-gooder nanny state is a female problem.
The emasculation of men makes it so much worse too.
Why is it that Democrats and progressive love all genders except traditional masculine male?
its like Gulliver waking up all tied up by the Lilliputians
Insider view of the Twitter board discussing the Musk proposal.
https://twitter.com/perpetuahughes/status/1515108533771153412
That was a well done thread
I'm all for Elon, but there is some irony of that thread existing on....twitter.
Federal judge overturns CDC mask mandate on planes and trains:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-florida-voids-mask-mandate-planes-transit/
A federal judge in Florida has voided the national mask mandate covering airplanes and other public transportation as exceeding the authority of U.S. health officials. The decision Monday by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Tampa also said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) improperly failed to justify its decision and did not follow proper rulemaking according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The judge even bought the argument that masks limit COVID transmission (despite the evidence to the contrary), and said the rule was still invalid:
The Trump-nominated judge also wrote that the court "accepts the CDC's policy determination that requiring masks will limit COVID-19 transmission and will thus decrease the serious illnesses and death that COVID-19 occasions" but "that finding by itself is not sufficient to establish good cause."
"Trump's big lie will spread like a virus."
To whom? Twitter users who are still on the fence about who the election?
"Trump's big lie will spread like a virus."
To whom?
Everyone around someone who isn't wearing a mask to protect everyone else from the virus.
People who are able to see the evidence for the first time, I imagine.
Do you really think this is an issue that people are going to be changing their minds about anytime soon?
For one example. If you show someone that in most states it is illegal to collect and hand in other's votes, then show them videos of dozens or hundreds of people showing up at drop boxes, putting on gloves, then stuffing piles of ballots into the boxes, and doing it over and over again, at some point it is going to give them some doubt.
Most people are reasonable. Even if they really want to believe something, their minds can be changed if they are shown enough evidence. And that is why the twitter thing scares so many people. It is not enough to control most of what the average person sees.
Why? This is why Soave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcUrH9w7AZU
'Its our job to control what people think'
Many people who share Musk's dissatisfaction with the platform—including Republicans and conservatives who think it discriminates against provocative right-wing speech
Seriously Robbie did you think your endorsement for Romney isn't provocative right-wing speech in the deep dark bowels of Twitter?
"Who think it discriminates"
Yeah.... those wacky guys just think that is what is happening. And it is only extreme stuff.
Nice job elududing staking out a position.
Because they think if you control the narrative, you control reality.
They’re delusional.
Undoubtedly the blue checks will infiltrate Parler or Gab if Musk takes over. Ideally Musk pulls out , shorts his shares, and the board tanks their stock price. Then someone writes a play "The Solid Gold Tesla".
"Later in that interview, Musk endorsed a feature many people have demanded: a Twitter edit button, so users could alter tweets after sending them. Facebook has this function, so it must be workable in some sense."
It warms my heart a little that Robby still cares enough to troll the Reason Commentariat like this... very well done.
I wonder sometimes if people ever study history. Free speech absolutist is not how authoritarian governments gain power or maintain power. Fascism is, was and will always be an authoritarian political ideology, where the rights of the individual are sacrificed for the good of society. Hitler and Mussolini both said as much. Individual liberty absolutists are the opposite of fascism. Free market capitalism is the opposite of fascism, which was marked by the government controlling all aspects of the economy. Yeah, you could own a business but the government decided when and how you ran it.
Fascism was an outgrowth of early 20th century progressivism. It was right wing only in the European dichotomy, which is far different than the American dichotomy. The majority of the "right" (which is a nebulous definition that is almost entirely meaningless) in the US are people who stand for individualism and oppose government authority. The right/conservative in America is a far different creature than the right/conservative European. They, the American right, has more in common with traditional liberals of the enlightenment period, than their European counterparts, who are far more likely to champion government control. Yes, there are exceptions to this rule. And most people, even libertarians, are not 100% consistent in their ideology.
The moral majority has given way to the leave me the fuck alone majority, although, with CRT and trans ideology being force fed, you could claim the moral majority never went away, but even in these, I tend to see more of a leave me the fuck alone attitude. You do you, just don't force us (or our kids) to bow to your choices. I'll defend your right to wear a dress and call yourself Henrietta, although you were born Henry, just don't teach my 5 yo about it. That's my job, not yours. And, no, I don't think you should use the same locker room as my daughter or compete against her in sports. It's still leave me the fuck alone ideology behind it all. I don't think the individual should loose freedom for the greater good. I think that's a dipshit idea, that always, leads to extremely poor outcomes. I see on side of the spectrum that seems far more comfortable with the actual functioning premises of fascism, (even arguably it's racism and blaming one group for the poor outcomes of another group) and it is not the side wearing red hats.
"It was right wing only in the European dichotomy, which is far different than the American dichotomy. The majority of the "right" (which is a nebulous definition that is almost entirely meaningless) in the US are people who stand for individualism and oppose government authority. The right/conservative in America is a far different creature than the right/conservative European."
Well said.
In France for example, liberalism is often associated with deregulation and a free market. Thatcher and Reagan were viewed as arch-liberals.
I would further add that the South American right/left identifiers are like Europe's as well.
Well said. Too many people miss the distinction you make between the European and American versions of the left/right dichotomy. Leading to stupid arguments about stuff like whether Nazis were left wing or right wing.
Yeah sure, nothing bad will come out of a single billionaire owning and dictating a social media platform.
Ahahhahaa.... funny....
Wait.... you're serious?
Hahahaha......
/J Jonah Jaimison voice
Hate to break it to you...we have already had that.
For years.
Can Musk force a shareholder vote on his proposal to relax the rules about what can or can't be said on Twitter? Who owns most of the shares? Could a proxy vote to repeal the current restrictions on "misinformation" succeed?
"Who owns most of the shares?"
The entire board combined owns about 77 shares...so not them.
"Why Does Elon Musk's Potential Twitter Takeover Scare the Media So Much?"
I think the answer is that they don't believe him when he says that his intentions are just to allow an open forum for free speech. Why don't they believe him? Because if they said the same thing, it would be to disguise an intentional bias. They'd want "free and open commentary" as long as it came from one side.
It's often the case that the things that most trouble one faction are those things which they're most likely to do themselves.
Maybe those of us who have opposed social media censorship for a while have a point.
Twitter is willing to kill itself before being sold. Their value, to THEM, is not monetary but purely influential.
I'll believe it when someone (as Zuckerberg briefly did) tolerates Holocaust denial again. Not until then. It's the touchstone.
The reality is newspapers or any free speech entity have to be financially strong enough to fight government censorship. Especially when free speech conflicts with unconstitutional actions by government.
For example: In the 1950’s during McCarthyism, CBS took great financial risk for allowing Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly to take on Senator McCarthy’s witch-hunt. Not only risk of punishment by federal regulators but private advertisers threatening to pull ad dollars. It takes a “big dog” billionaire to fight this type of unconstitutional censorship.
That “big dog” billionaire can be a partisan hack or a supporter of press freedom. When the Washington Post was fighting the unconstitutional activity of the Bush DOJ and other Bush regulators, they likely went private for that very reason. To his credit, Jeff Bezos has largely left the journalism undisturbed. Other news networks not so much.
This could be a great thing to take Twitter private if Musk allows it to be a true free speech platform, strong enough to stand up to government regulators.
Reminder: under the First Amendment, no government agency has the authority to censor legal First Amendment activity. It’s precisely the reason Hollywood introduced the ratings system (ie: PG, R, violence, nudity, etc). Since government has no authority to censor legal content, Hollywood empowered “parents and adults” as censors NOT government officials that swore a constitutional Oath of Office.
I gave up on twatter when they suspended my account for urging the goatfuckers in Iran to kill themselves after reading a story of them murdering homosexuals by hanging them from construction cranes. Twatter staff's poor widdow feewings are hurt by me telling tyrants to off themselves? Cry me a fucking river. They offered to restore my account if I give them my phone number. Fuck that.
From a business standpoint, Twatter under their current SJW management is a bubble stock. If Musk acquires them and rolls some heads, then with competent management, the site could be a very strong competitor for everyone from FaceBook to GoFundMe. It could even be worth as much as Musk is offering for it in five years or less.
-jcr
Elon Musk, Twitter’s newest big shareholder, could alter the course of the social media company as management battles a set of proxy proposals focused on topics from civil rights to politics at its upcoming annual meeting, shareholder activists and corporate governance experts said.
Whatever the outcome of Musk’s $43 billion (roughly Rs. 3,28,250 crore) bid to buy Twitter outright announced Thursday, investors with opposing political views described the billionaire entrepreneur as likely to work to undo some of the restrictions on content that Twitter has imposed as it attempts to promote free speech while combating hate speech and false information.
https://worldabcnews.com/elon-musk-deals-twitter-a-wild-card-as-shareholders-seek-reforms/
Have no idea who Matthew Rosza is, but he's got a near fatal case of TDS.
The risk is that Elon Musk could potentially expose vileness and extreme bias of the Social Media to the masses that discount the obvious. To start lifting the vail of blind acceptance that cover the masses.
If Social Media is exposed and people realize that they are being lied to and manipulated then people will start to question the Corporate Media and Government.
The younger generations rely on Social Media to receive the majority to their news content. The older generations rely on the Corporate Media to receive the majority of their news content.
Both Social Media and Corporate Media are in bed with Government and spread lies and official propaganda. Elon Musk has enough economic resources and enough of a public profile to that people will notice.
The "Machine" will start their attempt to destroy, defame and cast Elon Musk as an undesirable. Unfortunately the blind believers of the official propaganda regardless of how they are indoctrinated are likely to fall in line with the Official Group-Think.
While Elon Musk is not a saint, he appears to be preferable to the current crew specifically related to free-speech. He appears to be an advocate of Humanity as a Frontier Society versus.
Other billionaires such as Bill Gates lack the creativity or belief that Humanity can expand past the limits of our terrestrial planet. Instead are looking to limit (or exterminate) humanity to a sustainable level.
I choose Elon Musk's vision of Humanity as a Frontier Society. I'm repulsed by Bill Gates Neo-Eugenics tenancies where the elites are deemed desirable and the rest of us are only here to serve the elites.
One might flip this question around and ask why, and on what basis, the editors of Reason are so confident that a take-private transaction by Musk, putting Twitter firmly in his hands, would result in his implementing any of what he has promised or avoid any of the results predicted by those skeptical of the takeover.
Everything that Musk has said about his designs for Twitter suggests that he intends to make it a very profitable disinformation machine. We in the US tend to forget that, while it is used here to promote awful but largely harmless takes by the likes of Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens, other regimes have used it to promote genocide and support their own corrupt autocracies. And, make no mistake about it, given the opportunity, Republicans will use Twitter to the same ends.
Media consolidation is not good for democracies, and it is not good for people who believe that government should be limited. Right now, it is a fluke of luck, and a consequence of a century's worth of free speech values, that our major media outlets still compete with one another and it is possible to find journalism that is skeptical of official public propaganda. Right now, Twitter is controlled by a board elected by public shareholders primarily interested in the stock price. In Musk's hands, Twitter would be a machine for achieving his vision, whether that means an online "public square" where speech is free, or one that efficiently promotes the interests of those (including Musk himself) with business before the federal government and those with enough money and plans for manipulating public sentiment in order to shift elections to suit their own purposes (like, one might surmise, the funders of Reason itself).
This is about content moderation, not about free speech. Online platforms have content moderation which is protected by Section 230. Sure Musk can turn Twitter into a total sewer of scams, porn, hate speech and violence if he wants, but even he should understand that content moderation matters. Making overblown statements about free speech is easy. Figuring out how to have your platform not be 8chan is hard and Musk doesn't understand that. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/15/elon-musk-demonstrates-how-little-he-understands-about-content-moderation/
There will never be online free speech until the U.S. Supreme Court corrects faulty rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” in 1968 (which gutted the letter & spirit of the 4th Amendment - without the legally required constitutional amendment process.
Even if a private company allows uncensored speech that is legal under the 1st Amendment, government censors will illegally search or hack our computers following that legal exercise.
Government censors today view legal 1st Amendment activity essentially as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” but they skip the judicial-warrant legal requirement mandated by the 4th Amendment.
Government censors punishing legal speech is indeed an infringement on speech outlawed by the 1st Amendment - designed to “restrain” unconstitutional authority.
The possible good news: fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings like “Carpenter v. US” now makes warrantless-surveillance itself a “search” governed by the 4th Amendment. The “Carpenter” ruling states that if the result of warrantless-surveillance is a “personal map” of any person, that is a search requiring a judicial-warrant (surveillance supervised by judges). Hopefully the high court will mandate enforcement of “Carpenter” and future rulings.