No Misinformation, Only Truth
Elon Musk's interest in Twitter good for combating Big Tech censorship; publicity around Musk missed opportunity for Illinois political candidates
News has picked up this week on billionaire Elon Musk’s latest takeover crush – Twitter.
Musk, the eccentric founder of Tesla and Space X, reportedly has a net worth of $300 billion. He’s been using a small portion of that cheddar to purchase Twitter stock – 9.2 percent, according to published reports.
Tuesday, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted that Musk is the social media platform’s latest board member.
The debate over Twitter as platform vs publisher is at the heart of Musk’s involvement along with the protection of one of our country’s most coveted freedoms, that of speech.
Before Musk was appointed to the Twitter board, he tweeted out a First Amendment trial balloon to his 80.5 million followers:
When over 70 percent of the two million-plus respondents answered “No” to the poll question, rumors began to surface of Musk’s increased interest in the social media company. Less than two weeks later, Musk has a board seat and elevated the stock 30%, of which Musk owns 73.5 million shares.
It’s unclear just what Musk wants from Twitter. Is it simply a seat at the board table where he can wield more influence on company policy? Or is he playing a longer game, with plans to buy the company?
Musk certainly has the funds to purchase Twitter – it has a $40 billion valuation, less than 15 percent of Musk’s net worth.
(By comparison, Apple has valuation just south of $3 trillion, Amazon and Google are shy of $2 trillion.)
But according to reports, Musk agreed to purchase only up to a 14.9% stake in Twitter and not take over the Bay Area-based company.
For my money, Musk doesn’t need to own Twitter to steer it towards a model that embraces openness and fairness in public discourse. The rise of cancel culture can be traced to the popularity of social media, more specifically Twitter, where its abridged, 280-character format marginalizes reasoned debate and encourages dopiness and irrational dialogue.
And Twitter, which calls itself a “micro-blogging and social networking service,” has for years acted anything but like a benign platform for non-discriminatory interactions.
Aside from banning most notably former president Donald Trump from using the site, Twitter has censored former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson, critical of public policy’s Covid response, and has flagged accounts of those that have criticized transgender women competing in sports. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, had his account suspended when he tweeted about Dr. Rachel Levine, the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the United States. When Paxton tweeted, “Rachel Levine is a man” he was flagged for what Twitter called “hateful content.”
Most recently, Twitter suspended the account of the Babylon Bee, a conservative-leaning satirical website.
Musk’s involvement with Twitter is tied to the plight of the Bee, according to a tweet from Bee CEO Seth Dillon. Dillon said Musk reached out to the organization before tweeting out his poll question on Twitter’s adherence to free speech.
None of the scenarios mentioned are good for the country. It gives the perception that a Big Tech company (in the case of Twitter, one that has over 200 million daily users) is suppressing speech based on political leanings.
It’s safe to say Musk, in the span of a few days, has moved the needle on national conversation on the subject of Big Tech censorship more than any politician has in several months. Corporate media is obsessed with the flamboyant Musk, who tweets constantly and engages with his audience of millions like a tycoon version of Mick Jagger.
That leads to a rhetorical question tied directly to the political climate in Illinois – what do oppositional candidates in Illinois think about censorship, Big Tech and the First Amendment?
More specifically, why are they, or any candidate at the regional or local level, not consistently hammering incumbent Gov. J.B. Pritzker – and the other incumbent seats who supported him – on his record of stifling free speech and distaste for an open marketplace of ideas from the outset of Covid two years ago through today?
None of the GOP gubernatorial candidates could buy enough ads to replicate the notoriety of borrowing off of Musk-generated publicity.
In dozens and dozens of public statements – it would be inaccurate to call them “press conferences” as Pritzker never faced an objectionable media corps – the governor failed to provide any data to justify his unlawful executive orders.
The rare times he was questioned, he labeled any pushback as the ‘spread of misinformation,’ most notably from this Q&A session last August:
In February, when the courts caught up to his overreaching shenanigans, Pritzker tried to cancel a judge that ruled against his dictatorial mask and quarantine policies, referring to Sangamon County Judge Grischow’s findings as ‘a misguided decision.’
What’s the pattern here? Anyone who disagrees is no only immediately discredited, but no longer has the right to their opinion.
That stance – annulment over divorce – is at the essence of the censorship debate and defines cancel culture.
What do the oppositional candidates to Pritzker have to say about this topic? Nothing. They’ve been mostly quiet and that’s unfortunate.
I understand crime and taxes are important issues in Illinois heading into the June primary and November elections. Passing an anti-crime bill is a focus of the general assembly as they close out a session in Springfield, essential for incumbent Democrats to leverage on the campaign trail.
Pritzker appears to have identified one candidate, the Ken Griffin-backed Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin, who could give Pritzker trouble in the general election if he emerges from the primary. Coverage the past few days is on Pritzker’s financial link to the Democratic Governor’s Association, the political organization behind an attack ad on Illinois GOP candidates and more specifically, Irvin. Republican leaders in turn are going after Pritzker for not admitting his involvement in the ad.
All the political play-fighting is nothing more than a divergent smokescreen. Legacy media reporters gleefully cover the contentious back-and-forth but voters don’t really care.
What voters care about are crime and taxes. They care about jobs and education and in 2022, how their kids’ schools are being run and what’s being taught.
They also care about the constitution and freedoms.
And those truths have been trampled on with regularity by the current governor and political infrastructure in Illinois.
Back to Musk.
A Wall Street Journal editorial said this about the billionaire and Twitter:
Mr. Musk would do an additional public service if he shows that Big Tech censorship has a free-market solution…Republicans in particular should know better than to empower bureaucrats, and maybe Mr. Musk can show them a better way.
Want a path to defeat Pritzker and make a dent in The Machine?
Remind voters of the fattest bureaucrat in Illinois and of his misdeeds.
And follow the lead of Big Tech Disrupter, Elon Musk, and show voters there is a better way.
For story ideas, article comments/feedback, media inquiries and more, drop note to jon@jonjkerr.com, or @jonjkerr on Twitter.
I understand that Rabine's ads come out next week. We'll see how this candidate plans to approach this mess. I hope it will be relevant and meaningful, placing our "dear" leader's faults and misdeeds front and center.
As far as Musk goes, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.