Page Text: April 15, 2022
Librul Frenzy Over Musk Buying Twitter
In summer 2013 the Washington Post company and its publications were bought by the multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon:
Bezos, whose entrepreneurship has made him one of the world’s richest men, will pay $250 million in cash for The Post and affiliated publications to The Washington Post Co., which owns the newspaper and other businesses.
The Post has since consistently promoted low taxes for billionaires:
Opinion: Think twice before changing the tax rules to soak billionaires
Yesterday Elon Musk, also a multi-billionaire, launched a hostile takeover of the messenger service Twitter. He claims he wants to do that to allow for more 'free speech'.
Twitter has been criticized on the left and right for suppressing certain voices and information. It is seemingly directed by the mainstream 'liberul' view of the world that is currently promoting a war against Russia.
The reasoning it has recently given for kicking Scott Ritter and Pepe Escobar as well as other well known writers from its service make otherwise no sense.
Musk's offer threw the mainstream pro-war 'liberuls' as well as their neo-conservatives allies into a frenzy.
Without a hint of irony a Washington Post writer opined against Musk's takeover offer:
bigger
What does it mean when a billionaire can almost single-handedly swoop in and eat up this sort of communications platform? The easy answer is nothing good.
Yeah. Just ask Jeff Bezos or any Washington Post reader, or Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook and WhatsUp users, or the billionaires who own Google and Youtube. They all are system errors of capitalism. They should not exist. Tax codes should be designed to eliminate them.
Warmongers like Max Boot are especially fearful that some communication channel may become less censored and allow people who oppose his positions:
In his own Washington Post column Boot explains what kind of content he wants to have censored :
Political extremists dominate social media, [social psychologist Jonathan Haidt of New York University] says. A survey in 2017-2018 found that 70 percent of those called progressive activists had shared political content over the previous year, while the far right was the second-most prolific, at 56 percent. Most normal people don’t post any political content at all, but they are shaped by what they see from the extremes. “Recent academic studies suggest,” Haidt writes, “that social media is indeed corrosive to trust in governments, news media, and people and institutions in general. … Social media amplifies political polarization; foments populism, especially right-wing populism; and is associated with the spread of misinformation.”
"Why isn't everyone as docile as 'normal people'? Why would anyone ever doubt 'governments, news media and people and institutions in general'? Why is anyone criticizing me? THIS CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!"
I myself, by the way, currently get emails from Twitter on a daily basis. These are provoked by snitches who do not like me to point out facts or to debunk war propaganda:
Hello,
Twitter is required by German law to provide notice to users who are reported by people from Germany via the Network Enforcement Act reporting flow.
We have received a complaint regarding your account, @MoonofA, for the following content:
Tweet ID: 1510635534321860611
Tweet Text: Mar 30: Ru troops leave Bucha Mar 31: Mayor of Bucha announces town 'liberated', makes no mention of atrocities. [url] Apr 1/2: Azov Nazis enter Bucha [url] Apr 3: Ukr MinDef publishes video of 'Russian' atrocities [url] [media]
We have investigated the reported content and have found that it is not subject to removal under the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or German law.
Sincerely,
Twitter
I have yet to get banned by Twitter but expect that to happen anytime. Max Boot would certainly applaud it.
Posted by b on April 15, 2022 at 15:12 UTC | Permalink