New in PJ Media:
Early Sunday evening, Elon Musk posted a new Twitter poll: “Should I step down as head of Twitter? I will abide by the results of this poll.” Over seventeen million votes were cast, and the Yes votes won with over 57 percent.
So will Musk really give up Twitter after shaking up the entire world, and especially the U.S. political and media establishment that has now definitively proven that it opposes the freedom of speech?
He may be joking. He may be planning to step away from day-to-day operations of the platform and leave it to a like-minded person. Or he may be tired of all the abuse and threats, which were only going to increase the longer he pursued his free-speech agenda. If there was any doubt about David Horowitz’s dictum that “inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” there isn’t any now. Back in April, Musk tweeted: “By ‘free speech’, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.” That this was remotely controversial was bad enough in itself. Even worse is that Musk now, after just beginning to restore the freedom of speech on Twitter, faces government investigations, doxing, and worse to come.
Meanwhile, there has been the expected chorus of voices warning us how terrible freedom of speech really is. The Washington Post warned on Nov. 22 that “Musk’s ‘free speech’ agenda dismantles safety work at Twitter, insiders say.” The Post claimed that Musk had brought turmoil to the Twitter offices, and that he “has stoked the culture-war issues that helped inspire him to purchase the company in the first place.” The “Democracy Dies in Darkness” scandal sheet lamented that Musk was “a fierce advocate for the right ‘to speak freely within the bounds of the law,’” and stated that he “has moved rapidly — at times erratically — to undermine a regime built over a decade to define dangerous language on the site and protect vulnerable communities, replacing it with his own more impulsive style of ad hoc decision-making.”
Working from the same tired and totalitarian Leftist talking points, Time Magazine on Dec. 5 echoed the Post in calling Musk “erratic” and likewise warned that this freedom of speech business was dangerous: “Musk’s erratic behavior does not bode well for the future of free speech on social media, as his support for this principle is seen as upholding of racism and conspiracy theories as gospel.” NPR turned to none other than the Mary Poppins of Disinformation, Nina Jankowicz, the disgraced former head of the Biden administration’s aborted censorship mechanism, the Disinformation Governance Board. Jankowicz lamented that Musk was going to allow a “free speech free-for-all,” which would be “eventually silencing marginalized voices.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
While it is now Musk’s private company to do as he pleases, I certainly am less than impressed by his modus operandi – of holding online polls on questions like this or the other one about whether to lift the 7-day ban on the journalists who doxxed him. The latter decision missed an opportunity to provide a salutary lesson to journalists who behave like thugs the way they always have on Twitter. As for this poll, a CEO’s job is not a democratic or even a representative republican job (the board chairman is the closest thing to the latter): CEOs are not democratically elected. Yeah, Musk has several companies to worry about – SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, The Boring Company and now Twitter, so it makes sense that he’d look for a CEO to run day to day operations in the latter, and indeed, in all his companies
About the Left bellyaching about Twitter, it’s amusing to watch. When Conservatives worldwide were being banned on Twitter – be it here or in Brazil or India or Europe, Leftists were busy telling us that Twitter is a private company and First Amendment rules don’t apply. Well, now Twitter is an even more private company: it’s no longer even publicly traded, and suddenly, these journalists are screeching bloody murder like pigs about to go into a shredder. Of course, simple reason is Twitter’s sheer user base: nobody is screaming at Gettr, Truth Social, much less Gab or Parler, to let these Marxist loons onto their platforms
Then there is the EU which wants to crack down on Twitter for cracking down on American doxxing journalists. My suggestion to Musk – not that he’d take it – would be to wind down Twitter operations in Europe, and make Twitter unavailable in EU countries, except for those that do carveouts from EU rules
I left Twitter in 2018 after being suspended for a tweet about muslim ‘rapefugees’ in Europe – the refugees who rape locals in the name of islam. They demanded that I use a real phone number to unlock the account and then delete that tweet. I balked for several months but finally went in and did that, and found the bulk of the 100+ followers and followees that I had gone, and so in solidarity w/ them, I deleted my account
I’ve been in 2 minds about returning there, and have decided to adapt a wait & watch attitude on whether to return, based on the policies of a stable new management – I do think Musk’s role as CEO is temporary, even if he retains ownership. Has anyone here returned to Twitter since the exits of Gadde, Agrawal, Roth and the other comrades in their management, and if yes, how has the experience been?
Rarely says
There are clearly some things which should be blocked from social media That gov’ts tend to leave the discretion up to the social media companies themselves is misguided. It leaves it up to a very few people to fashion public opinion.
Whatever his motivations may have been, Musk has opened up the conversation and brought urgency to it and that is a good thing.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I dunno about Canada, but in the US, the only exceptions to the First Amendment are incitements to violence, or speech that would cause panic (the ‘Fire in a crowded theater’ scenario). Ideally, that should be the template that social media companies should follow. Of course, being private entities, they can do anything, including what Twitter did during the Gadde regime
What is bringing this to the fore in the Twitter files is the revelation that the FBI was pressurizing Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden content ahead of the 2020 elections. This is analogous to the 00s, when the Bush Administration tried to get foreign countries, like Syria and Uzbekistan, to do to enemy combatants what they themselves couldn’t do under US law, and that was somehow ruled unconstitutional. This one is even more unconstitutional than that one was: regimes in Damascus or Tashkent are not bound by US law, whereas US companies like Twitter (even if they may consider themselves ‘global’ or ‘multinational’ or ‘international’) are. And that is what President Trump addressed more than a week ago in his resolution on the First Amendment
Rarely says
In light of the monumental damage that social media can cause via conspiracy theories and outright lies and misinformation it might be wise to add a few more exceptions.
Rarely says
Just toying with you Infidel. Since the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to social media the field is wide open to legislate control over what content would be allowed and what would not. Musk has shown in graphic terms the power one person can wield.
Don’t you see a problem here? What’s your solution?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Rarely
I don’t see a bigger problem than the one we had when Twitter was being run by Gadde and her gang. Musk has, so far, been for minimal censorship: the only guy he has banned is Kanye West. Whereas when Gadde (not Dorsey or Agrawal) was running the company, Twitter had a Leftist groupthink that banned all contrary thought
The issue ain’t the number of people wielding power, if you have a horde of Marxists on one hand, and a free speech absolutist on the other. It’s that of groupthink, particularly if the groupthink happens to be that one POV should be banned, and the other promoted
The solution, if you ask, is the market solution. To an extent, it’s skewed by the fact that Twitter and Facebook were the pioneers, and therefore have exponentially more of an established user base than the alternatives, such as Gab, Parler or Gettr. However, it’s still true: if you are a Leftist who doesn’t like Twitter, you can go to Facebook. If you are someone on the Right who’s suspicious of Twitter, you can go to Gettr or Gab. If you are a video editor who has trouble w/ YouTube, you can stage your video on Rumble. Ultimately, the alternate platforms are the solution
Rarely says
Free enterprise is one thing (Hurray, I’m for it) but it doesn’t address the very real damage caused by insane conspiracy theories, intentional misinformation and outright lying with a malicious intent — all straight out of Hitler’s (and Putin’s) playbook.
A solution must be found but I fear that, with the terribly polarized condition we find ourselves in today, such a solution may be very elusive.
One can only hope that a middle ground of some sort can be worked out where the most dangerous and damaging items would be banned.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Rarely
It’s called ‘Freedom of expression’. It exists on both sides: you had Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Michael Moore and a whole lot of other Leftists who made movies promoting major Leftist conspiracy theories, and nobody on the Right called for banning them: we just boycotted them. But suddenly, cue a decade or two, and you people can’t handle it when much more insignificant people simply post their conspiracy theories on Twitter or Facebook or other social media outlets
You can’t have it both ways. Either censor both sides and just have an approved Centrist POV that must be followed, or do what any free society does, and allow people of all sides to speak. Only exceptions should be when people, or even governments, call for violence, illegal activity or genocide. People are free to believe anything – from 9/11 was an inside job to 50 million illegals voted in the last election
Westman says
I’m only certain of three things about Twitter: It will become profitable, politicians everywhere will demand it conforms to their demands, and the Left will never give it up in any significant numbers.
All this Lefty talk about leaving the US unless a politician is not elected, or, that some policy is defeated, seems to have gotten rather muted. Where you gonna’ go? Afraid that European vacation will be the wrong kind of “cool” and those deflated dollars, buying inflated services, won’t go far? Still want the US to be like Europe? Canada?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Actually, some Leftists have left Twitter for the likes of Facebook, SubStack and so on. The thing that Leftists want is a controlled environment, which is no longer there on Twitter, even if Musk puts in controls to appease ‘advertizers’.* As we all know, they hate to be challenged. So when they see that challenges to them won’t be censored, as they were w/ Gadde, they’ll move to other places where it will be, like Facebook
It’s very different from leaving the US for even the likes of Belgium or Germany, much less the likes of Congo or Turkey
* I have heard that Twitter’s advertizing has improved: while the woke companies may have walked, smaller companies that are not woke but don’t find much of an appeal in the alternate platforms are now using Twitter to promote their product