'The Golden State Is eating Its Golden Geese' California Defaults on Loan: Businesses...
Rescue Party: The Dems Desperate Search for a Normal 2028 Presidential Candidate Begins
Daytime Dysfunction: 'The View' Continues to Give ABC's Lawyers MAJOR Headaches
Literally NO ONE Is Asking for This: CBS News Insists 'Some' Voters Are...
Heaven on Earth: Take a Glimpse Inside the Restored Notre Dame Cathedral
Unpopular Opinion: Rand Paul Warns Trump Against Using Military to Deport Illegals, Gets...
Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida AG Pam Bondi for Attorney General
Bob Casey Jr Finally Concedes to Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate Race
This TOTALLY Did Not Happen! Climate Activist Says Hurricanes Convinced His Barber Climate...
LET THEM FIGHT: Cenk Uygur Calls Out Joy Behar and 'The View' and...
Daily Mail: We're All Gonna Die From Climate Change! (In 75 Years, That...
'You'll See Things Our Way': Jaguar DOUBLES DOWN on Cringe Ad With Vaguely...
Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan Will Have Netanyahu Arrested If He Enters the City
Biden's America: NFL Issues Security Alert for Players Regarding S. American Crime Syndica...
Karine Jean-Pierre Explains How Much Cheaper Your Thanksgiving Meal Is This Year Thanks...

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement