It has come to my attention that Thursday was a very distressing time for many people around the world, for that day Elon Musk officially took control of the social network Twitter.
There can be no refuting that this remarkable event has motioned different things to different people.
But for these individuals, it signifies a great tragedy.
Something that was never intended to be suffered has now been licensed: the right of speech on the Internet being enlarged slightly.
Indeed, for this segment of culture, or so it seems, cannot prevail on the merits of their arguments alone.
Those with different worldviews must be controlled.
Free speech must only move in one direction.
That is how it has been for quite some time.
But an unlikely turn of events now appears to be taking place.
Things now appear to be changing.
Musk’s first actions were to fire CEO Parag Agrawal, the company’s chief financial officer and its top lawyer.
Several hours later, Musk tweeted “the bird has been freed,” an apparent reference to Twitter’s logo.
These are only the very latest in Musk’s ongoing crusade, which consists of upholding free speech and perhaps even redesigning the notion of content moderation.
When news broke of Musk’s aspirations in April, the event was covered extensively in the media. I also spoke on the matter, which can be read here.
“The reason I acquired Twitter,” said Musk, in a tweet, “is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence.”
On Wednesday, Musk entered the company’s San Francisco headquarters carrying with him a porcelain sink, to which he tweeted, “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”
Aside from Musk’s new acquisition, those who frown on unapproved language are troubled by yet another dreadful prospect— a former president being allowed to speak on Twitter.
Should this come to pass, it was reported in the media that advertisers plan to boycott Twitter.
Though I have been unable to find any public mentions of such advertisers as of yet, we can expect that they are imminent.
As we know, Musk has called Twitter's Trump ban a "morally bad decision" and "foolish in the extreme."
In May, Musk accurately stated that the ban was "a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice."
It is clear to see that those companies who have advocated for or who have censored Donald Trump, have gone from a business simply providing customers with products and services, to a business promoting a political view, which is of course their choice.
But it is important to remember that it is also the customer's choice if they want to support the business's political view.
As those paying attention have long realized, companies boycotting because a company refuses to shut down some else's speech signifies to onlookers which companies to boycott, for the public is the ultimate arbiter in deciding if they wish to buy their products or subscribe to their services.
The immense irony here is that Twitter is a private company and so Musk can do whatever he pleases, which is, of course, a principle those advocating for the restricting of speech have consistently cited for many years now, which falls in line with Big Tech systematically shutting down conservative opinion.
Yet the question that is in need of asking still remains: Why are these companies afraid of free speech?
And not only companies, but private individuals.
To be true, for some celebrities maintain that they will leave Twitter as a result of Musk taking ownership.
Other thoughtful opponents of Musk have chosen to take a more honorable route, proclaiming to others that they “cannot keep running away” and that they must “stand and fight!”
Some found it odd how promoted viewpoints fostered and nurtured by Big Tech, controlling factions and artificial manipulators of system have resolved to portray themselves as the victim in all of this, when they have repeatedly maintained unfair advantages, shutdown speech and have had the upper hand by dominating Twitter and every other social media network and innumerable websites for many years.
But one could make the case that celebrities, and others, do not not actually believe what they say.
Indeed, those who remember history will find such claims reminiscent of the 2016 presidential election, in which many celebrities vowed to flee the U.S. following Donald Trump’s victory.
As detailed by The Hollywood Reporter, “The Good Place and She-Hulk actress Jameela Jamil quit Twitter on April 25, according to People, and declared, ‘I fear this free speech bid is going to help this hell platform reach its final form of totally lawless hate, bigotry, and misogyny. Best of luck.’ She later deleted the tweet and returned to the platform. Some on the platform are comparing the protests to celebrities who declared they were leaving the United States if Trump was elected, but then ended up staying anyway.”
Another consequence to technology and Musk’s drive is worth considering. To be sure, one must also wonder how the free-speech platform Gab is to survive in the face of all this, as all of its users are now able to have a Twitter account without fear of being permanently deleted for attempting to make their voices heard.
Is there now a reason to have alternatives?
I believe the answer is yes, but perhaps only time will tell.
Nonetheless, those who always view censorship as a necessary measure in culture are not yet through.
In an apparent address to Elon Musk, Nilay Patel, in an article for The Verge, said that Musk is now “the King of Twitter, and people think that you, personally, are responsible for everything that happens on Twitter now. It also turns out that absolute monarchs usually get murdered when shit goes sideways [italics mine]. Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers ‘brand safety.’ That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total assholes. So you can make all the promises about ‘free speech’ you want, but the dull reality is that you still have to ban a bunch of legal speech if you want to make money. And when you start doing that, your creepy new right-wing fanboys are going to viciously turn on you, just like they turn on every other social network that realizes the same essential truth.”
The blogger goes on to say, “Actually, there’s a step before trying to get the ad money: it turns out that most people do not want to participate in horrible unmoderated internet spaces full of shitty racists and not-all-men fedora bullies. (This is why Twitter is so small compared to its peers!) What most people want from social media is to have nice experiences and to feel validated all the time. They want to live at Disney World. So if you want more people to join Twitter and actually post tweets, you have to make the experience much, much more pleasant. Which means: moderating more aggressively! Again, every ‘alternative’ social network has learned this lesson the hard way. Like, over and over and over again.”
It is also striking that those who have long upheld the persuasion of controlling and constricting speech seem to be intolerable of being treated by the same measure they have inflicted on those who value free speech.
One might wonder how such people would respond to being given strikes on their account for sharing images of an Anti-Fa banner, or being flagged by so-called fact checkers for suggesting that the so-called January 6 “insurrection” was of more consequence than 9/11, or being suspended for sharing a link to CNN, or being censored for calling for the murder of Donald Trump, or shadowbanned for defending pornography being shown to children in public schools, or being locked out of their account for purporting that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen, or permanently deleted for claiming that no one has died from being given the Covid-19 vaccine.
If one can be sure of anything in our current culture, it is that more changes are imminent.
But perhaps Musk was right.
There may be use in pausing to let all this sink in.
We're too divided now to appreciate what Musk is trying to accomplish. But, I for one think freedom of speech is a gift that's overlooked, and our right. Having lived in a post-Soviet corrupt country before moving to Canada, then to US, I appreciate it and feel protective of it.