Huge new development in ‘Sound of Freedom’ donor ‘kidnapping’ case
Maxwell Frost is ONCE AGAIN mad landlords have rules about how they rent...
AP notes 'critics' say Rumble promotes far-right extremism and conspiracy theories
WaPo's Joe Biden simp Philip Bump locks down replies to his latest defense...
USA TODAY talks to voters and learns who their REAL ideal candidate is
Ted Cruz SCHOOLS anti-Christian organization targeting Auburn mass baptism
No wonder Donald Trump said he wanted to buy a Glock
Twitter offers its farewells (LOL) to Megan Rapinoe after final USWNT match
Democrats post slow-motion video of Joe Biden delivering for Gen Z
Oversight Committee to hold first impeachment inquiry hearing Thursday
Whoops: Steven Cheung deletes tweet about Trump buying a Glock after all Hell...
'Lost': FBI sued after allegedly losing hundreds of thousands of rare coins during...
WATCH as baby rhino thwarts keeper's sophisticated cage in daring escape caught on...
'You're an idiot.': Ana Navarro earns MAJOR eye-rolling for being 'shocked' by Menendez...
Must be nice! Michelle Obama will speak to Germans about inclusion for a...

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:


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.”


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


Trending on Twitchy Videos