(2022-04-06) Solana King Shit

Mike Solana: King Shit. Get in, loser, we’re buying Twitter. A flash of lightning, a crack of thunder, and our nation of the too-online looked up in horror and excitement — Elon Musk had once again done something. (Musk Buys Twitter)

Wednesday, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal announced Elon would join the company’s board, and Team Yay Censorship lost its mind.

The real reason members of the censorship class are angry is they are currently empowered by the most dominant speech platforms in history to amplify their own, narrow voices, and to silence their political enemies. This tremendous, wildly dangerous privilege is now perceived as threatened by the introduction of Musk to Twitter’s board. The question is free speech. Elon’s detractors believe “unfettered conversations” are dangerous

At the time of Steve Jobs’ death there was the popular question of who would assume his de-facto position as industry leader. Today, it’s hard to even imagine a world in which the role does not belong to Elon

Unjustifiably, we share his victories, and he stands for our failures. The pressure is unfair, and the kind of teenaged boyishness with which Musk approaches social media has always struck me as a bit of rebelliousness in response. Meme by meme, the man attempts to remind us he’s not our savior, and he’s not our Satan.

But of particular interest is the strangeness with which even Elon’s fiercest critics, in derision, cannot help but imbue their most hated villain with supernatural, almost god-like powers. They truly do believe he’s capable of anything, which is why they’re so upset. They think this guy might actually save free speech, and for authoritarians that is an existential threat.

In order to enforce narrative obedience across our social media platforms, political monoculture among social media leadership must be maintained. Clearly, Musk does not adhere to the political monoculture in vogue. Therefore, any fantasy version of Twitter with a greatly-empowered Musk is a freer platform. This is the only concern

The New York Times, as Ben Thompson sharply noted this morning, agrees. From their latest: "The plan jibes with Mr. Musk’s, Mr. Dorsey’s and Mr. Agrawal’s beliefs in unfettered free speech. Mr. Musk has criticized Twitter for moderating its platform too restrictively and has said more speech should be allowed... Their positions have increasingly become outliers in a global debate over free speech online, as more people have questioned whether too much free speech has enabled the spread of misinformation and divisive content.""

An insane admission from the Times, but I’m glad we’re finally having an honest conversation.

who is worthy of the power to censor? To this question, Jack unambiguously delivered his answer before Congress: nobody.

In calls for such things as “empathy” and “healthy communities,” censors purposely drag us to the realm of ambiguity, because when there are no clear rules governing decisions to censor true information, or to deplatform critics of misinformation, all that matters is whoever is in power.

Just this week, over in the world of “harm reduction,” New York Magazine reported Black Lives Matter leadership had friends at Facebook suppress an embarrassing story about what appears to be the organization’s ongoing corruption. This is an especially important example, as it highlights the clear fact that our present system of censorship is not in place to defend journalists. Our present system of censorship is in place to enforce a very specific, clearly political worldview, to defend adherents of this worldview, and to erase detractors.

If executed properly, Bluesky would answer many of Jack and Elon's concerns about our increasingly unfree internet. But until this week, there was no indication such lofty goals were even worth discussing. They didn’t seem possible.

And listen, at the end of the day, all of the worst people on Twitter are miserable.