There's Some Disagreement With ABC's Climate Correspondent As to 'How Science Is Done'
‘There’s No Bottom For These People:’ Jake Tapper To Release Book on Cover...
Chuck Schumer's 'What a Good Business Operator Would Do' Slam on DOGE Collapses...
Join Us! Here's How YOU Can Help Counter Dem/Media Lies About Trump's Agenda
Brian Stelter Didn't Always Think It Was Wrong to Ask if a Media...
'Mi Amor': Yarden Bibas' Eulogy for His Family Is a Stark Reminder of...
Legacy Media Pushed Fake Anti-DOGE Narrative with Staged Protests at Republican-Led Town H...
Slacker Attacker: Federal Worker Calls into Popular Podcast to Voice Frustration with Lazy...
The Scream Team: Does a Dem Ticket of Jasmine Crockett & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...
WHCA President Eugene Daniels Out at Politico Plus a Look Back at When...
Despondent Correspondents: Scott Jennings Lays Out Hard Facts for the Depressed Press
Meeting Mayhem: Florida Democrat Maxwell Frost Goes on Name-Calling Tirade Against Trump a...
Drivel War: Backward-Facing Hakeem Jeffries is Looking to the 1800s to Fight Musk...
Michael Moore Says We Could Have Just Deported the Person Who Will Cure...
Still Rules the World: Tears for Fears Celebrates 40th Anniversary of Songs From...

L.A. Times explores Elon Musk's paradoxical 'less democracy, more freedom' vision for Twitter

Elon Musk’s bid to take over Twitter has brought with it a parade of media hot takes like no other. Here’s the latest:

Advertisement

So… more freedom means less “democracy”? Yeah, we’re confused too.

Well that’s certainly one way to look at it.

Behind Musk’s headline-grabbing gambit, however serious — and many question if it is serious — is a philosophical juxtaposition of two theories of how to manage and promote free speech as a social-media company in 2022. It’s a war between the public and the private, the controlled and the chaotic, the ESG investor crowd and the philosopher-troll king.

Over the years, like many publicly traded companies, Twitter’s more socialized investor structure has allowed oversight and activism by dissatisfied investors. As part of the broader movement in many industries to take environmental, social and governance factors into account, some shareholders have pushed for resolutions urging the company to, among other issues, take greater responsibility for the content on its services.

The problem these days is that the word “democracy” has been co-opted and re-defined as “Democrat narrative,” and therefore if something’s called “bad for democracy” it can simply be translated to mean “bad for Democrats.”

Advertisement

It’s helpful to Democrats, and therefore “democratic” according to the Left.

It’s worth noting that the L.A. Times is owned by a capital firm headed by a man with a reported net worth of over $7 billion. But billionaires such as Patrick Soon-Shiong or Jeff Bezos owning media doesn’t seem to be such a trigger to the left of center.

“Called it!” – G. Orwell

We probably should have put the “beverage warning” at the top of this story.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos