We hear continued warnings from the establishment and the left (and there is deep overlap there) about “attacks on democracy.” Of course, Donald Trump is supposed to be a “threat to democracy.” But it all looks like a projection. why?
Because self-styled “defenders of democracy” are now trying to destroy the only major social media democracy in existence: X (formerly Twitter).
Two recent articles exemplify this. The first concerns an actual British government conspiracy to destroy X. The second revolves around research that blames X owner Elon Musk for causing university professors to leave the platform. The Independent's article on the issue actually calls it “Twitter's brain drain.” This is yet another attack based on the assumption that free speech is the perversion of social media. It's a reversal of reality.
The true spirit of social media
Thus, social media was supposed to be about people, hence the very name. This is why Section 230 protection from defamation suits has been granted. The idea was that since users could post anything, in other words, the publisher was the platform, and the platform could not be held responsible for what was published. That makes sense.
It's also history.
The reality is that social media companies today generally function as publishers. They prioritize material that aligns with their agenda and censor or “shadowban” anything that doesn’t. By the way, shadowbanning is when your posts are hidden from your followers. This is despicable, despicable, and disgraceful because you think you're getting your message across but the platform is “ghosting” you.
For more information on Big Tech censorship, click here, here, here, here, here, and here. And how bad is it? Just ask Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology. After studying this phenomenon several years ago, he warned that if all the big tech companies supported the same candidate, up to 15 million votes could go to the same candidate at election time. And today, with national races decided by narrow margins, this is more than enough to overturn the election results.
Twitter brain drain — or brain gain?
Of course, this is if all social media companies endorsed one candidate. This is one reason why the establishment now despises X. X's departure from the censorship regime constitutes a violation of the regime's phalanx of rejecting the truth.
This leads to an article in the Independent. This article is relevant because it reflects the typical mainstream media anti-X bias. This article introduces a study published last Tuesday entitled “The Vibe is Off: Did Elon Musk kick academics off Twitter?”
The short answer is “no.” Of course not. The scholars fled.
But it shouldn't become your property. One researcher said that X was “an important platform for scholarly communication and networking, especially among social scientists.” But now they are disappearing. Researchers believe this is due to specific changes in X. The Independent reports:
These include mass layoffs of the company's staff, reinstatement of tens of thousands of accounts suspended for violating Twitter's terms of service (many of which were unfairly censored), changes to Twitter's verification process, and This includes an increase in misinformation.
… “We argue that the nature of these threats, and the reality of Mr. Musk’s ownership of Twitter, have influenced scholars to quit Twitter altogether or at least reduce their engagement with the platform…”
Poor babies. The lyrics of the nursery rhyme may come to mind: “When the boys came to play, Georgie Porgy ran away.” I mean, how would you feel if conservatives fled the platform because liberals were finally free to express their opinions?
What is Eatin' Ya, Teach?
But the question is: why should scholars care about these changes? They can still say what they want.
Surprisingly, X also lets you mute and block other users, as well as make your tweets private. Translation: You can set up an echo chamber there if you want. So what's the real problem?
Perhaps these academics are angry that the narrative is no longer controlled so that they can punish students with point deductions, just like in the classroom. Maybe they are cowards who can't stand criticism. Perhaps they are delicate snowflakes melting under the warm light of truth. Perhaps it's a false principle and they simply “don't participate in Musk's right-wing vanity project!” Or, more likely, a combination of two or more of the above.
Is it really a “brain drain”? Now consider the false adage often mistakenly attributed to Mark Twain: “Never let schooling get in the way of your education.”
As for “misinformation”, it's hard to even take this seriously. As I have reported, mainstream media specializes in misinformation. Scholars, that intellectual group, might be even worse. As The Economist reported in 2013, more than three-quarters of shocking studies in many fields fail completely. (See also 2014's Blinding Me With Science: Fraud and Folly for Fame and Funding.)
small people in big government
However, what is clearly strange is the British government's conspiracy mentioned above. As Blaze Media reported on Tuesday:
A whistleblower has revealed that a nonprofit focused on “digital hate” has a stated goal of destroying Elon Musk's X platform.
Leaked documents reveal that the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a U.S. nonprofit and British charity, has an internal goal of “killing Mr. Musk from Twitter.”
Images from January, March, and October 2024 list “killing Musk's Twitter” as a yearly priority.
…Reporters Paul Tucker and Matt Taibbi want nonprofits to discuss policy with (Minnesota) Sen. Amy Klobuchar's team and seek “citation/press release approval” from her. He posted other screenshots revealing what happened. The document showed the nonprofit had already set up a meeting with the senator's team.
Tucker said the nonprofit held a closed-door meeting with a group of liberal representatives who organized against Musk.
Guests included members of President Joe Biden's administration, the office of Congressman Adam Schiff (R-Calif.), Biden State Department officials, Canadian Congressman Peter Julian, and Media Matters for America. (Related tweets below)
And of course all this is justified by its “misinformation” ploy. But is there a worse purveyor of misinformation and disinformation than governments? The primary role of intelligence agencies is to spread disinformation.
At least X allows “community notes”. Here, if a large number of users identify a post with incorrect information, a note will be attached to the post to correct the record. This is another aspect of X's vibrant social media democracy. And know this: Even X great Elon Musk is noticed in the community. Attempting to 'community note' a UK government official could result in arrest. (They call it “hate speech.”) Of course, statisticians want this standard in the United States as well.
So, once again, who is the threat to “democracy”?
