Time Magazine has published at least two articles bemoaning Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.
Time has pointed out that “journalists and politicians depend on the platform to share their ideas and build their brands”, which is true and is why Twitter is important. But then they went into full confusion mode. This is what they wrote: “Those who have framed Musk’s acquisition of Twitter as a disaster for democracy are not wrong, but they are eliding three important facts. First, internet platforms have been undermining our democracy since at least 2016. Second, politicians have failed in their duty to force accountability and reform of internet platforms. Finally, journalism years ago embraced the “engagement” model of internet platforms, making the industry partially complicit in the harms.”.
OK, but seriously, what the fuck? I don’t usually swear on the blog, but this…
Democracy is supposed to be rule by the people, of the people, for the people. That is in its bloody name. Demo + kratein, people rule. Internet platforms, if not controlled, are a case study in democracy. They allow everyone to come together and have discussion, with no limits, no oppression, nothing is disallowed. Properly managed – that is to say, unmanaged – internet platforms are the very embodiment of fundamental principles of democracy. How, then, can internet platforms be undermining democracy?
As for the politicians “failing in their duty to force accountability and reform of internet platforms”, that is a good thing. Accountability of internet platforms would mean turning them into a tool of propaganda for whoever is doing the accounting. There is no harm in internet platforms being unaccountable, there would be if they were accountable – especially to a certain ideology.
Of course, that is precisely what Commies running the Times want. They don’t want democracy, on Twitter or anywhere else, they just want a platform that will unquestionably promote their Communist-Marxist-Progressive ideology. They don’t want competition, they want totalitarian domination, a monopoly on the market of ideas.
And rather than Musk’s framing being “ridiculous”, it is Roger’s claims that are ridiculous. Yes, the First Amendment may relate only to speech restrictions by the government. But it is the principle of the free speech that matters. And if we assume that United States and other Western countries truly are democracies, then social media are an essential part of the governance of the society. They are part of the extended government, so saying that censorship of the social media is OK is the same as stating that tyranny is OK. Twitter – just as with Facebook, Youtube and so on – has grown so much that it is not a corporate platform any more, it is a public platform, and should be treated as such.
And yes, this means providing the platform for “hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories”. Besides, that is nothing new: Facebook, Twitter as well as Times itself already provide very capable platforms for the hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. They just don’t care (me ne frego) because all of this is of the politically correct variant. Hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories are perfectly fine, in Times’ view, if they promote leftist ideologies.
And who are the “marginalized communities that depend on Twitter to make themselves heard”, according to the Times? LGBTQ? They are adored by the mainstream media. Communists? Celebrated by the European Union and EU Commission (apparently a genocidal ideology is perfectly fine if it supports globalism). Genocidal globalists? That would be the Communists, and they literally control the West today.
As a result, anyone even slightly to the right of Lenin had been forced to run away to Gab, to BitChute, and so on. So if one really cares about marginalized communities, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is a good thing. As things stand right now, the only extreme voices that are given traction on social media – on Facebook, on Youtube, on Google – are the extreme Left. Bad actors are indeed suppressing other voices and harassing those who they disagree with, but those bad actors are predominantly on the Left, and the main marginalized community that depends on the social media to be heard are, nowadays, conservatives and reactionaries. Yet up until now, Twitter had been censoring them left and right. Facebook and Youtube still do so.
It is the Left that has subverted democracy, by taking over the mainstream media, social media, universities and halls of power. And now it is using this accumulated power to ensure its continued stay in power. Potential turn of Twitter towards freedom of speech is one of the greatest blows that Left has received recently, so it is natural that all of its guard dogs had shown up, barking at full tilt.
In a functioning democracy, citizens protect themselves, while government merely provides them the tools, if even that. A government that protects citizens is automatically undemocratic, and more protection government provides, less democratic it is. And if government has to protect citizens from themselves – as Time suggests – then who will protect the citizens from the government?
Yet democracy has indeed deteriorated. Not the point, however, that “acquisition of a mediocre company by a billionaire might finish it off”. Reality is, democracy, today, is dead – and mainstream media, such as Time, have enthusiastically helped dig its grave.
Political Reactionary 