By now you’ve probably heard the big news: Twitter has accepted Elon Musk’s buyout offer.first Musk, a self-described “freedom of speech expert” with an “obsession with the truth”2 has been open about its view that Twitter needs to be made private to be a true free speech platform.
With this acquisition, Musk has the ability to make that happen. His plans for the platform reportedly include “an edit feature, an open-source algorithm, less censorship, and a higher bar for removing offending tweets,” The Verge reports. .3
Approved $44 billion purchase
According to a Reuters report,4 The deal was made after Musk met with a number of shareholders, outlining the specifics of his $54.20 share purchase price. Reaching out to shareholders seems to require the hands of the board of directors.
Not only did they have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of shareholders, but they also realized that turning down the offer meant Musk could dump his stock (he owned 9.1 %.5), causing stock prices to plummet. According to Reuters:6
“Many Twitter shareholders contacted the company after Musk outlined a detailed financial plan for his bid … and urged it not to let the chance of a deal …”
On April 25, 2022, Musk and Twitter reached a deal worth about $44 billion. It was unanimously adopted by an 11-member panel. Once the transaction is completed, Twitter will become a private company under Musk’s leadership.7 It is believed to be the largest deal to take a company private in two decades.8 In a statement announcing the acquisition, Musk said:9
“Freedom of expression is the foundation of a working democracy, and Twitter is the digital city square where issues important to the future of humanity are debated.
I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase reliability, defeat spam bots and authentication. all humans. Twitter has huge potential – I look forward to working with the company and its user community to unlock it.”
Will Musk reinstate previously banned accounts?
Of course, people are now wondering how Twitter might change under Musk’s leadership.
“The billionaire, who has more than 83 million followers on Twitter and roams the barrier service gibes and memes, has repeatedly said that he wants to ‘transform’ the platform by promoting freer speech and giving users more control over what they see on it. By taking the company private, Mr. Musk can work on the service away from the prying eyes of investors, regulators and others.” The New York Times noted.ten
On the other hand, Musk could actually use his newfound powers to reveal rather than conceal. For example, he will have the ability to investigate and expose government and media-directed censorship.
Over the past two years, we’ve seen social media companies work on moderation steps to moderate certain views, and we’ve seen evidence that government officials have backdoor channels. through which they instructed companies to censor information on their behalf. It wasn’t legal, but they did anyway – and ignored it.
Many are now hoping Musk will unblock people who have previously been removed from the platform, although the most famously banned individual, former President Donald Trump, has stated that he will not return to Twitter, as he launched his own social media platform.
But what is of interest to everyone on this site is that in the summer of 2020, Twitter began labeling the fake Mercola.com links as unsafe and malicious, telling potential readers that their site I can steal passwords and other personal data or install malware on your computer – a tactic that reduces views by about 95%.
This was and is completely wrong. In contrast, my site was then set up to protect all readers from intrusive data mining by Google. Soon after, Twitter banned the Mercola links outright. If you include a link to one of my articles, your article will simply be disapproved and not published.
Time will tell whether Musk will allow the recovery of all previously banned accounts. Of course, among those accounts are many other doctors and scientists trying to share information about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID shots.
If Musk acts with integrity, his takeover of Twitter could become a real turning point in the battle for personal freedom and freedom of expression. Big Tech reporter Dan Patterson, interviewed by CBS News in the video above, doesn’t believe Musk is being completely honest about his intentions for Twitter.
Patterson doubts the notion that free speech is “a red herring,” and Musk is more concerned with gaining influence than defending freedom of speech. washington articles11 seems to second that movement, pointing out that while Twitter isn’t the most influential platform out there, “politicians, companies, and activists often rely on it to set up their agendas. news”.
Twitter has censored science
Perhaps more serious than censoring and banning any particular individual is the fact that Twitter (and other social media platforms) has scientifically censored itself, which is an extremely dangerous move.
For example, in late April 2021, Twitter moderated a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses,twelfth concluded that masks were ineffective in preventing virus transmission and could cause significant psychophysiological adverse effects.
Prashant Bhushan, a records advocate for the Supreme Court of India, a respected human rights lawyer with 2.1 million Twitter followers, posted a tweet recommending you read the study. Twitter quickly removed the post, citing a violation of Twitter’s rules.
As noted by Blog COVID13 at the time, “Twenty Twitter employees with Starbucks latte are now legal and scientific authorities compared to well-respected longtime lawyers who have fought corruption. whole life”.
Lockstep censorship has become the norm
It’s crazy, the mainstream media has gone to great lengths with the censorship of science, and as noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker,14 one of the main reasons the media is not willing to call Big Tech censorship is because the media relies on fake fact-checking to support their own lies.
Social media platforms of all kinds also seem to be working together, censoring the same information – a fact that suggests some sort of centralized decision-making. As reported by Thacker:15
“In other examples, Facebook censored an investigation I wrote for The BMJ that uncovered troubling data integrity issues with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.
The BMJ editors sent Mark Zuckerberg an Open Letter calling his company’s fact-checking ‘inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.’ Two weeks ago, Johns Hopkins professor Marty Makary tweeted that LinkedIn censored a post he wrote about a study published in JAMA.
JAMA research has found that natural immunity, from being sick with the COVID-19 virus, seems to be just as effective as a vaccine. In this light, social media companies act as the propaganda arm of the drug and smear any complex thinking that questions the merits of the vaccines they sell.
Reporters should oppose the censorship of scientific information, but most of the media – especially the quirky species known as science writers – have aligned with the interests of scientists and industry Reality check …
Distorted information doesn’t have to be complicated when people believe what they read. Once this belief is established, censors make sure that disinformation is still going strong, followed by denying that censorship exists. That way, inconvenient facts don’t spoil the chosen story. “
A developing story
It’s too early to say whether Musk’s takeover of Twitter will mark a turning point for free speech. I hope that is the case. In the CBS News highlight clip, Patterson rattles the waters by claiming that free speech is a fantasy that can be construed either way.
It’s not, but we can’t be too surprised. Overall, we’ve seen Republicans and free speech advocates support Musk’s takeover of Twitter, while Democrats clamor that using Twitter privately causes “threat to democracy”; that it would open the door to all manner of “hate speech” and would need to be closely monitored.16
However, Musk is absolutely right in his view that without freedom of speech – the right to speak your mind, even if others think you’re wrong – democracy is just a myth. What censors are calling hate speech is often nothing more than a dissenting opinion.
I still remember the days when social media involved being exposed to opinions of all kinds. Despite the potential to be “offended,” if you want to live in a free society, you have no choice but to allow opposing views to exist.
