To understand the insane Left-wing media and Democratic angst over @elonmusk’s takeover of Twitter, you have to understand the history of monopolistic legacy media dominance in this country.
Until the 1990s, virtually all Americans had to rely on just a few major legacy media sources: the three networks, The New York Times, WaPo, and the like. The Left-wing media establishment loved this: it was an effective collusive oligopoly. Then the internet changed everything.
Thanks to Drudge Report and news websites of the right that cropped up, people could diversify their news diet – and they did, en masse. The legacy media was suddenly being called out and fact-checked by outlets that people actually read.
Now, it’s important to understand how people accessed these websites: predominantly, they did so directly. They bookmarked their favorite websites, and they clicked on them each morning. Then came major social media.
Social media re-centralized the mechanisms of distribution for news. Instead of bookmarking ten websites, for example, you followed ten accounts on Twitter, or added them to your Facebook newsfeed.
This was highly convenient – and it was good for a lot of non-mainstream news outlets, who suddenly had access to billions of eyeballs. A thousand flowers bloomed.
And, for a time, there was stasis: because Democrats maintained political control, these social media sites were praised for their free speech principles, and clever use of these services – a la the Obama campaign in 2012 – was considered good and worthy. Then came Trump.
When Trump was elected in 2016, legacy media outlets and the Democratic Party panicked. They thought they had forged an unbeatable electoral coalition, and there was simply no way Hillary could lose. When she did, they sought someone else to blame – and they found social media.
It was now Facebook and Twitter that had led to this horrific Trumpian moment. Misinformation was to blame, and Facebook and Twitter were the evil platforms that had allowed all of it.
Thus, pressure was put on the social media sites to stop acting as free platforms for dissemination of a broad variety of views; instead, the social media platforms – which had monopolized news traffic – could be used to re-establish Left-wing legacy media oligopoly.
“Misinformation” would be fought by shutting off the traffic spigots on non-legacy media; legacy media would be promoted and elevated. And because virtually all news traffic to sites now came through these social media sites, the oligopoly had once more taken hold.
People were banned for saying the obvious: men were not women; mass masking was not an effective solution to covid transmission; vaccine mandates were ineffective because vaccines did not stop transmission; etc.
By simply claiming victimhood, the Left leveraged social media into restricting the flow of information.
It is hilarious that purple-haired interns, playing an inside-outside game with legacy media and Democrats, pressured social media to such an extent that Twitter banned a Christian satire site for saying that men are not women – and that this became a historical inflection point.
But that inflection point matters. Musk will presumably again allow a thousand flowers to bloom. And the oligopoly can’t handle that, which is why they have declared all-out war on @elonmusk. But it won't work. Because all he has to do is say "no."
We can only hope that other social media bosses (cc: Mark Zuckerberg) follow Musk’s lead and find again the mission that led them to found their companies, rather than cowering in the corner at the behest of the Democratic-legacy media complex.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"You homophobic weirdos wouldn't see my movie, and I'm so angry, I'm going to yell at you and insult you until you see my movie!" -- Great Marketing Strategies Of History
Btw, worth noting that those same "homophobic audiences" have been turning out to see gay-centric movies for decades: "Brokeback Mountain" (2006, $83M domestic gross), "The Birdcage" (1996, $124M), "Philadelphia" (1993, $77M)...
Perhaps audiences aren't all that into films reportedly featuring gay orgies, obnoxious lectures on why kids must be taught gay culture, and a denouement involving the high stakes of whether two dudes should not have sex with other dudes for three months. wsj.com/articles/bros-…
Understand that when the media say "anti-democratic" or "fascist," they don't generally mean "against democracy or in favor of unelected autocratic rule." Sometimes they do, but most of the time these days they aren't talking about Xi or Putin.
They're talking about Meloni or Orban or Bolsonaro or Netanyahu or the Swedish Democrats or the Polish Law and Justice Party or DeSantis or Trump: any elected leader who oppose green utopianism, LGBTQ+!&$ transformational social politics, and open borders idealism.
When the media try to name the supposed anti-democratic predations of these disparate elected officials, they fall into the trap of naming policies they absolutely support so long as it's Leftists pushing them.
Here comes the media attempt to get me banned from social media. They can't name which views of mine are particularly radical, so they just go for the "I'm radicalizing the youths!" Pathetic garbage from the Canada's public broadcaster. cbc.ca/news/young-men…
They can't actually connect me to hate groups because I'm not actually connected to hate groups, but I have Bad Views™! Those views apparently include "objectification of women," which is a strange charge to level against an Orthodox Jew who promotes virginity until marriage.
What, precisely, are my Bad Views™ about masculinity? That men should be responsible? That they should get jobs, get married, and take care of their children? Sounds Very Very Bad™!
The merger of celebrity and politics is complete. There is no real cultural difference between Jennifer Lawrence, Meghan Markle and AOC. Their interviews are indistinguishable.
Yuval Levin: "the people who occupy our institutions increasingly understand those institutions not as molds that ought to shape their behavior and character but as platforms that allow them greater individual exposure and enable them to hone their personal brands."
This phenomenon actually began with Barack Obama, The Lightbringer™, who was treated as a full-scale celebrity by the media, and who acted as though he was outside the system he was supposed to be supporting and upholding.
Jennifer Lawrence, who does interviews with Vogue at Tikkun spa and reportedly has a net worth of around $160 million, complains about the incessant sexism of America. Also, she decided she was a liberal by watching "30 Rock." Yes, really. vogue.com/article/jennif…
The celebrity culture truly is a wonder. Vapid morons who say lines other people write, earn millions of dollars doing it, and get their political thoughts from sitcoms, lecturing the rest of us on our political ignorance.
If magazines like Vogue and The Cut were dedicated to Tom Wolfe-esque satire about celebrities, they wouldn't read any differently.
This image is the worst piece of presidential optics I have ever seen. Let us count the reasons.
1. Lighting a historic American site -- the site of our founding documents -- blood red. 2. The red-and-black background against the front-lit visage of a grim old man screaming at Americans, fists clenched.
3. Two Marines standing in the background, their faces in shadow, only their white-gloved hands visible. 4. The yellow window at the top of the photo, shedding a sickly pale light over the image.