- Have I made my point? For better or worse, the rich have always owned
the printing press, cameras and microphones. So, why the sudden 180 in opinion
of someone rich owning a media company? Quite simply, the left wants the bullhorn
for themselves, but not for those who would allow opinions with which they disagree
or report stories they wish to suppress. Musk is not a right-wing conservative
(although it shouldn't matter even if he is). He identifies as libertarian and his
political leanings swing both ways. He wants every voice to be heard. It's called
diversity and inclusion -- something the left preaches but often does not practice.
Just recently, Musk was a darling of the left for owning Tesla, an electric car
and clean energy company. Suddenly, he's Lucifer.
- Just so I understand what the rules are here, it's ok for the world's
second richest man to own The Washington Post -- not ok for the richest man
in the world to own Twitter. Got it. The overreaction we see is called selective outrage.
- Twitter has regularly banned and
shadowbanned
those with incorrect opinions or news they want
to suppress. Case in point:
Twitter banned the New York Post
for reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop during the presidential campaign. Other
references were also banned. As it turns out, their reporting was accurate.
Not only did Twitter ban free speech, they also intentionally suppressed the truth
to influence our presidential election. When the truth about Hunter's laptop
finally became impossible to deny, Twitter unbanned The New York Post -- but only
long after whatever influence the ban may have had was over.
- I think those at Twitter are panicking because if Musk buys the company, he will
- look under the covers and see how right-leaning users are being banned and shadowbanned
- see how their ranking models are skewed
- flip the switches off that control various types of censorship
- make his findings public.
For those complaining the loudest, it's a clear case of "[thou] doth protest too much." Shakespeare
| Some of our friends on the left are freaking out over Elon Musk buying Twitter. There are the predictable accusations of racism, sans examples, that I find inexplicable. I've heard newscasters and politicians explain that a billionaire owning a major media company is bad for free speech and democracy. Okay, so how come there's no panic over these billionaires who already own major media outlets? |  |
| Billionaire | Media | Net Worth | Image |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marc Benioff | Time Magazine | $7.9 billion |  |
| Jeff Bezos | The Washington Post | $175 billion |  |
| Carlos Slim Helu | The New York Times | $72 billion |  |
| John Henry | The Boston Globe | $3.6 billion |  |
| Laurene Powell Jobs | The Atlantic | $21 billion |  |
| Patrick Soon-Shiong | Los Angeles Times | $7.1 billion |  |
| Mark Zuckerberg | Facebook and Instagram | $85 billion |  |
| Mortimer Zuckerman | US News & World Report New York Daily News |
$3.1 billion |  |
