19 Comments

I am both a free speech absolutist and and a free market absolutist.

Elon Musk is free to market his antisocial media platform any way he chooses. He is free to promote speech he likes and censor speech he doesn't. But Elon wants it both ways. He wants to operate freely BUT he doesn't want the market consequences of his moderating policies.

He wanted to sue businesses who publicly withdrew their advertising from X-itter because they did not want to be associated with a platform that was, in fact, promoting Jew hatred.

My own personal decision to abandon Twitter--- long before it was X came during the first weeks of Russia's war on Ukraine. It became impossible to sort out the avalanche of propaganda flooding the field from all sides. Suddenly a nation that was only slightly less corrupt than Russia was being held aloft as the last chance to save democracy in Europe. The only questions in my mind were: does a sovereign nation have the right to defend itself against the invasion of a hegemonic power? Would it be prudent in this particular case to assist that sovereign nation in resisting that invasion? The answer to both was, yes! No need to post the latest unsourced pictures of atrocities captured on a mobile phone. No need to post "I Stand with Ukraine" virtue signals all over the antisocial media universe. No need to try and sort out the awful truth from the trolls jamming the internet from Russian bot farms.

Respected reporters had become mere "influencers" trying to drive the story. Rather than reportage appearing and then being disseminated to social media--- social media was driving the reportage itself.

I had seen this act repeated for a few years around issues of less importance but to see it in overdrive when there was so much at stake just was enraging to me. So I made the market choice and left the platform like Elvis left the building. I have not missed it. My engagement with other antisocial media platforms has radically altered as well. I follow no one and don't seek followers. I engage in platforms in which I am likely to get more value from (like the Unpopulist and The Bulwark) than waste my time and energy. I try not to be a troll and wish others would try as well.

If one doesn't like the way an antisocial media platform operates leave it.

Make the invisible hand move.

Expand full comment

Have you given any thought to whether these issues are endemic to social media or whether there can be, if done right, a platform that doesn't fall prey to the harmful elements you list here?

Expand full comment

As things operate today I think it is pretty much endemic.

If the market demands better it can get better BUT the financial incentives militate against that.

I could not reduce my social media footprint until I had experienced fully the consumption of time and energy I was sacrificing for what Dave Chappelle has defined "as not a real place." My market choice was to leave period. I completely altered my use of Facebook by only engaging with actual family and friends that I actually have known at some stage in my life. People with whom I have had a historical, human and not just a random virtual connection.

I suppose if I were a professional writer, author, journalist, etc. who needed to use social media to drive eyeballs to my products or needed to have constant contact with thousands of followers to support my brand I would see the platforms as essential to my life. But as a mere consumer they are completely unnecessary.

I say all this on a social media platform but one from which I learn things and where engagement is generally civil and fun!

Expand full comment

Bravo! When I read a columnist or an opinion piece, at least I know what I'm getting. Why would I engage with a medium where I'm subjecting myself to the shady presence of "influencers"?

Expand full comment

It is of course ok to criticize Elon Musk/ X especially as it pertains to potential contradiction, or out-right hypocrisy. What is not ok is leading with the premise of "ideologically driven moderation practices and selective compliance with the rules and regulations of various countries" being problematic post takeover when the same was true pre purchase (Twitter).

Expand full comment

Twitter had robust compliance systems internally, and the supposedly bombshell Twitter Files shows that they had genuine good faith debates about how to handle certain edge cases. Since then it's all just whatever irks Elon.

Expand full comment

False, twitter files show they worked with the government to simply take down whatever they wanted. The staff themselves even called themselves communists, as Veritas undercover footage showed

Expand full comment

Veritas, the guy who's board fired him for embezzling money? Totally trustworthy guy.

Expand full comment

Totally false.

Expand full comment
Sep 19Edited

It absolutely did. The fact that you can't even see that is why you probably shouldn't bother with this substack.

Taibbi, Schellenberger and Elon are bad faith to the core. Even Bari Weiss stopped talking about the Twitter files when she saw how dishonest they are.

Taibbi went in front of Congress and LIED that "millions" of accounts were blocked because of Renee Diresta's work, and that is provably untrue.

Oh and once Elon saw that Taibbi had a Substack, he de-prioritized his tweets in the ranking algorithm.

It's bad faith nonsense all the way down.

Expand full comment

Woke bilge. Musk deserves the Nobel Prize.

You, the other social media bad actors and the 51 intel chiefs can get lost. Along with Hillary who's calling for criminal charges against "misinformers" and Newsom who is outlawing parody. What crap!

Expand full comment

It absolutely is fair. He bought the platform while making loud proclamations about free speech absolutism. That was the stated purpose of buying it. Whatever the last iteration did has little to do with moderation moving forward. It's all on him now.

Expand full comment

Isn’t that what was happening before?

Expand full comment

It was, but it was a GOOD thing because it only

Happened to the Bad People who disagreed with the author

Expand full comment

Musk is the only reason Free Speech still exists today. His purchase of Twitter broke the media wall the censorship regime built around mankind, painstakingly.

This was proven by the inability of people who were harmed, REALLY harmed by Covid vaccines to tell their story without being shut down.

This was ALSO proven when the FBI and the Democrat let house suppressed the Hunter Biden story to affect the outcome of the 2020 election. This was UNQUESTIONABLY election interference.

4 years later, we now know this.

When Musk purchased twitter, this broke open the free market of ideas that a small group of people, like cult leaders held tight.

Anybody who faults Musk has no idea what they're talking about because they are in the cult.

Expand full comment

Sadly, opportunism and selectivism are still among the oldest living political ideologies

Expand full comment

Musk also censors substack

Expand full comment

Woke left bumf.

Expand full comment

Isn’t this just every social media platform? Why pick on Musk?

Expand full comment