Are free speech advocates being blindly optimistic about Elon Musk's Twitter takeover?

American Thinker ^ | 04/26/2022 | Rajan Laad

[SeekAndFind]

The news about the board of Twitter agreeing to a $44B takeover offer from the billionaire Elon Musk caused both celebrations and meltdowns all over the world.

Musk tweeted the following:

🚀💫♥️ Yesss!!!


♥️💫🚀 pic.twitter.com/0T9HzUHuh6 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 25, 2022

The situation currently on Twitter is such that merely questioning the groupthink can get a user suspended.  At times, information is suppressed without the user's knowledge — i.e., the tweet is allowed, but its visibility is restricted.  Twitter also allows and promotes trends that are beneficial to the progressive agenda.

For conservatives, the hope is that Musk will liberate the platform from its overwhelming leftward bias and restore free speech. Many conservatives are hoping their suspended accounts will be restored.

The left's meltdown began the very day Musk made his bid public.  Twitter employees staged walkouts in protest.  MSNBC warned its few viewers that Musk's takeover of Twitter will have "massive, life and globe-altering consequences."  SNL took the low road; under the guise of satire, they claimed that Musk's bid was because "White guys want to use the N-word."

Now that the bid has been accepted, the New York Times, in a cliché-ridden article that reads like a parody piece, is claiming that "Musk's reasons for taking control of Twitter aren't about free speech; it's about controlling a megaphone.  With his legion of fans, Musk will command a gigantic megaphone and be free to plug his own investments, pooh-pooh sound health regulations and shout down critics."  The article also claims that "[f]emale Twitter users, in particular, ought to worry about whether Musk will bring his apparent disdain for women to the company he is about to own."

[SeekAndFind]

Twitter’s board may have accepted Musk’s offer, but that doesn’t mean things change magically. Twitter has a complex organizational structure. There are copious policies and standards. There are rules of corporate governance that mandate multi-level approvals for any changes. All of this means abundant red tape before any change is allowed to percolate.

It also would be wrong to assume that the powers that be behind the scenes in Twitter, especially those who walked out, are not planning ways to sabotage Musk’s agenda to ease restrictions. Perhaps the rules of approval have been made more complex and opaque.

Even if Musk manages to recruit a team who believes in his agenda, it will take a considerable amount of time before changes occur, and there may still be saboteurs within.

It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. government will step to regulate the platform, citing hateful conduct or terror threats or any other flimsy excuse.

The point remains that although we hope Musk turns Twitter into a utopia for free expression, we must be cognizant of the forces he is up against.

The Washington Democrat establishment and their allies all over know that if Twitter falls, the remaining social media platforms will either be rendered irrelevant or will have to fall in line and allow free speech.

Do not expect the establishment to surrender; they will not let go without a prolonged dirty war, like the one they are still waging against Trump.

[cgbg]

Musk needs to ban leftist speech.

Fair is fair!

[SamAdams76]

It's also important to note that the deal won't be closed (finalized) for as much as another six months.

So not sure how radically this platform will change in the near future. Will likely be status quo for a while until Musk can get his arms around it and start getting his own people into key positions. This might be months away.

[SpaceBar]

We need to go back to core principles where people have the right to be stupid and say stupid things, but with all the consequences they may incur by doing so.

[Sans-Culotte]

the New York Times, in a cliché-ridden article that reads like a parody piece, is claiming that "Musk's reasons for taking control of Twitter aren't about free speech; it's about controlling a megaphone. With his legion of fans, Musk will command a gigantic megaphone and be free to plug his own investments, pooh-pooh sound health regulations and shout down critics." The article also claims that "[f]emale Twitter users, in particular, ought to worry about whether Musk will bring his apparent disdain for women to the company he is about to own."

So what if he does? Ignore it if it offends you. Just like I'm supposed to do when I see a commercial with two men kissing.

[nickcarraway]

Yes. I said that on another thread.

[angry elephant]

With conservatives coming onboard with twitter, leftist speech will be countered in logical/realistic terms thus educating those who have been accepting leftist speech with no criticism of it.

Leftist speech should not be banned but there will be the opportunity to expose its faults, much like Free Republic where various articles are published and the users dissect it.

[Little Ray]

Probably.
But Elon Musk can’t be worse that the pukes running Twatter right now.

[nickcarraway]

You are just assuming what Musk believes.

[Bishop_Malachi]

It also would be wrong to assume that the powers that be behind the scenes in Twitter, especially those who walked out, are not planning ways to sabotage Musk’s agenda to ease restrictions. Perhaps the rules of approval have been made more complex and opaque.

_______________________________________________

Then the Left-wing employees need to be treated like the January 6th “insurrectionists”. Fire them, harrass then, bring law-suits against them if need be, but go full “Lefttard” on the Left-wing just like they do against us.

[cgbg]

My problem with conservatives these days is they only see two possible outcomes:

—Leftists win

—Level playing field

A third option should be on the table.

[chajin]

Nothing is ever settled until it is settled the way the left wants it settled.

If Musk truly intends to make Twitter the open-discussion-and-debate vehicle that our side is hoping for, he will have to resign himself to continuous warfare with the left, similar to what DeSantis has to deal with daily in FL, and Trump dealt with, but was eventually overthrown by.

[circlecity]

“ There are rules of corporate governance that mandate multi-level approvals for any changes. All of this means abundant red tape before any change is allowed to percolate.”

If he takes it private, as promised, most of those rules and regs won’t apply.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

“The situation currently on Twitter is such that merely questioning the groupthink can get a user suspended. At times, information is suppressed without the user’s knowledge — i.e., the tweet is allowed, but its visibility is restricted. Twitter also allows and promotes trends that are beneficial to the progressive agenda.”

Let’s have Musk explain the continued input from the Flat Erffers.

[irv]

The answer to the question in the headline is, “Yes, but, he cautious optimism is warranted. He is unlikely to make it worse.”

[cornfedcowboy]

I’m hopeful. Can’t be much worse than now IMO.

[Yo-Yo]

There are a few on the far Right that think the Twitter takeover by Musk is a ruse to torpedo Trump’s TruthSocial service, just as it is finally getting off the ground.

[Boogieman]

“There are rules of corporate governance that mandate multi-level approvals for any changes.”

Those are rules that governed the public corporation of twitter. If twitter becomes a private company, as Musk intends, then none of that is actually a barrier anymore.

“It is also not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. government will step to regulate the platform, citing hateful conduct or terror threats or any other flimsy excuse.”

The 1st Amendment applies to the federal government more stringently than to any other entity. So the federal government getting involved in regulating speech on twitter would actually just open the door to forcing twitter to operate under the same restrictions as the federal government, which would mean they would barely be able to police speech on the platform at all.

[KarlInOhio]

Twitter’s stock price has dropped to 49.80 today. That means that Wall Street is pricing in $4.40 per share in doubt that the deal will be finalized and time value of money between now and the closing.