Elon Musk says that he will lift the ban on you-know-who when he assumes control of Twitter. Which suggests to me not that Musk is claiming to be a Drumpf enthusiast, but rather that he is claiming to be a free-speech absolutist.

The results are not going to be kind to Twitter. Once that platform ceases to be moderated, it will very likely quickly descend into a cesspool of unchecked vituperation and hate speech.

From a business perspective, this will not be good for Musk. Some other large company will push a properly moderated alternative that is not so polluted, and people will abandon Twitter, flocking in droves to the saner new place.

But what if Elon Musk is not interested in a positive business outcome? What if he has larger fish to fry?

Because of this move, he is quite likely to become a de facto ally of our former President, which would give the latter a boost to be elected for a second and final term in 2024. Which in turn might then pave the way for a different goal — deciding the outcome of the 2028 U.S. Elections.

Even if Twitter hemorrhages money, Musk will be controlling the conversation for the next six years. After which he would be in a good position to install his Republican candidate of choice into the Oval Office.

I really hope that I am wrong about this.

One Response to “Kingmaker”

  1. Fabio says:

    Isn’t it weird that everytime someone say they are pro-X rather than anti-Y we change their verbiage to « No, you are really anti-Y » ? Of course it happens than some change their semantics knowning very well their ideology is politically incorrect, but attacking them systematically on their language (what social discourse on the internet seem to polarize into) is akin to a fascist derivative, we collectively force upon ourselves an Orwellian NeoLingua.

    I prefer my politcal adversaries to « speak their truth », for myself being able to speak mine and have the tool to fight theirs on facts, not just the veil of social acceptance we force the collective to wear.

    As for the issue it seems the problem is – as often – tighten to private control of mass media rather than said media agenda. As an example we know corporations tend to prefer profits over ecological considerations, they might communicate on their well-intended behavior (via green washing) or discard their responsabilities toward individuals (via lobbying), but it’s their power rather than neo-liberal ideology alone that might be to question.

Leave a Reply