Billion dollar plummet in the name of free speech
The free speech abolitionist is struggling to make the social media platform profitable.
Opinion by Asher Miles, Staff Writer
Normal Twitter users must evaluate the structural integrity of the platform as Elon Musk sits loftily in his board office, quietly whispering to himself “this is fine” as the smoke from increasing racial epithets slowly engulfs him.
According to figures from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, researchers have found a soaring increase in slurs after Musk absorbed the platform into his ever-growing portfolio.
The most visible online public institution on the planet was acquired by the self-serving opportunist with hopes to fill a deep-seated nihilistic cavity that grows with every failed business adventure. Musk’s business decisions include “The Hyperloop,” which cost an exorbitant $100 million per mile — over $95 million more expensive.
The ideologically driven Musk’s incompetence will bring down the multi-billion dollar platform in the name of increasing free speech. If he truly sought to democratize free speech in the social media sector, then the mogul would have touted nationalizing it. Twitter should be a public utility, but because the platform is a private entity, it is subject to the profit motive. Only through nationalization could the first amendment reign on the virtual chalkboard-wall.
Musk’s initial reasons to overtake the social media giant were ostensibly to increase free speech rights for users after multiple members were banned for violating the terms of service. If the engines of capitalism are nothing else, they are consistent.
But Musk fails to realize that free speech, on its own, is as meaningful as lawlessness in a society where some people have guns and the others are unarmed. Instead of leading with a drafted terms of service to implement upon finalizing the acquisition, Musk abruptly locked 7,500 employee’s work accounts, before hastily firing them. With no communications department, users are unable to appropriately discuss issues of harassment, forcing users to go to Instagram and Facebook to share their thoughts.
Ironically, Musk does not believe that nullifying the feature that allows brands to authenticate themselves is an attack on free speech. He does, however, believe that banning white supremacists such as Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer and David Duke is an infringement on the first amendment. What is amoral about a social media company deciding that they do not want their bandwidth hosting content that they view as destructive?
If Twitter privately-owned a wall in a neighborhood and any community member could pontificate their thoughts on it, then Twitter would take ownership and have complete regulation. If the wall was nationalized, or collectively-owned, then democratic votes could be held on what is and is not against our American first amendment right to free speech. Conversely, if the billionaire down the street buys the wall, then the only difference is that the individual may decide the terms and conditions of the wall. Sounds pretty “un-American” to me.
Many are not shocked that the man who proclaimed that his cyber truck would float on water is unable to manage a billion dollar social media platform, but his sycophants continue to vie for him under the guise of promoting “free speech.” While the first amendment’s core principle is to support freedom of individuals to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, many Americans forget that there are notable restrictions.
Yet, we must ask again, what is amoral about a social media company deciding that they don’t want their bandwidth hosting content that they view as destructive?