Main Highlights:
- Elon Musk’s bid to purchase Twitter has created a schism in public opinion. Not that we should be surprised; mega-deals provide continual clarity.
- However, the Musk-Twitter controversy has injected enough external considerations into the discourse about the prospective sale that it may get a little confusing.
- Perhaps no response has been more humorous than Marc Andreessen’s recent barrage of tweets on the matter, which featured visual and textual gags.
Elon Musk’s attempt to acquire Twitter has a polarized opinion. Not that we should be shocked; mega-deals are a constant source of clarification. However, the Musk-Twitter issue has introduced enough external factors that the conversation about the potential sale can be challenging to comprehend.
Perhaps no response on the subject has been more amusing than Marc Andreessen’s recent onslaught of tweets on the topic, including visual and textual jokes. Andreessen appears to have concluded that Twitter is too judgmental and that Musk’s acquisition of the firm will transform it into a kingdom of free expression. That is an idea.
There does appear to be a cluster of venture capitalists congregating in Florida with an interesting philosophical bent. I am beginning to see the Thiel-Musk-Andreessen perspective as straightforward: Anything that restricts a small minority of billionaires’ power to do whatever they want is tyranny.
This suggests that Twitter — which has a long history of making errors but is attempting to create a relatively open platform and not so poisonous as to be helpful — is on their radar. How free you believe Twitter is or is not depends on your priors; in general, I think the site has done an admirable job of leveling things out over time.
Observations from the field:
Substack, sponsored by Andreessen’s venture capital company, has a relatively tight set of content restrictions dictating what you are and are not permitted to say or post on its platform. The majority of it is rather conventional. No incitement of hatred towards protected groups? Reasonable. A blanket prohibition of pornography? That is, honestly, considerably more censorious than Twitter. To use Twitter.com as an example, you can publish as much visual smut as possible.
Rumble, financed by Thiel, also has a lengthy list of content notes. Indeed, the right-wing-favored, soon-to-be-public-via-SPAC program requires users to refrain from “posting or transmitting any abusive communication, inciting violence, harassing, damaging, vile, anti-Semitic, racist, or threatening.” That is relatively wide and contradicts the assumption that free speech is not permitted on Twitter!
Facebook is the final piece of information in this conversation. Marc Andreessen serves on the board of directors of Facebook. And while Facebook’s conditions are numerous, its views on speech are relatively limited — post a breast on Instagram and see what happens — and yet Andreessen has been satisfied to collect Facebook cheques from time immemorial.
How does the Miami venture cohort find Twitter so irritating when they fund or assist in operating sites with equal or stricter terms of service? Apart from the fact that they could care less about being hypocritical, it is believed they are just concerned about having anything they want to say prohibited. Musk tweets frequently and appears to be unaffected by censorship. Is this only to reintroduce Trump to Twitter? Keep in mind that the former president is also barred from Facebook, where Andreessen presently works part-time.
Apart from me, he wishes Musk would acquire Twitter so he could grapple with the problematic social mechanics of content moderation. It is neither straightforward. And it is not something that can be achieved consistently — the most one can hope for is a mix of open discussion and the very minimum restrictions necessary to keep the commons free of the majority of types of abuse. This implies that while you cannot threaten to kill somebody on Twitter, you may TERF it to your heart’s content.
It’s unclear what the assemblage of mega-wealthy technologists considers to be genuinely free speech. Rather than that, they want to be allowed to express themselves without fear of public backlash. ‘Still wondering whether they believe that freedom of expression means not being compelled to accept criticism of their parochial notions.
None of the individuals in question require additional funds. Additionally, they are adamant in their convictions. Therefore, why not simply state everything? That would be exercising their right to free speech – the government cannot say a word about their viewpoints, so why not just pop off? Observe what occurs. They may elicit disdain from those who disagree, but so what?
Remember when Andreessen supported colonialism only to be forced to eat crow publicly? They have my doubts that he would retract now. Therefore, if everyone is concerned about being restricted, let us lay out some speech cards. Allow it to tears!
