X Close

Elon Musk must destroy Twitter He should fire its servers into outer space

Time to log off (Taylor Hill/Getty Images)

Time to log off (Taylor Hill/Getty Images)


November 4, 2022   6 mins

If there is anything more dull than listening to acquaintances relating their dreams, it can only be reading journalists complaining about Twitter. Yet since Elon Musk spent $44 billion on becoming its main character, the topic has become inescapable. As Ernst JĂŒnger remarked in The Glass Bees, his prophetic 1957 novella about a tech billionaire, “economic absurdities are produced only when power is at stake”. The furore — online of course — about Twitter’s future direction is entirely downstream of the perception that its ownership is a valuable prize to be wrestled over, the world-island of political discourse whose mastery brings with it absolute power.

Such a widely-held belief, put forward by Musk’s opponents and fans alike, illuminates the nature of the platform. It has become the precise opposite of its original stated intention, as a decentralised platform for the instantaneous dissemination of information. Instead, Twitter is a centralised platform for the creation and enforcement of ideological narratives. The fear of liberals, and the hope of some conservatives, is that under Musk’s ownership Twitter will cease to be a central pillar of “the Cathedral”, the ideological apparatus by which the liberal order maintains its hold on effective power despite the growing opposition of voting publics.

For Right-wingers, who see Twitter functioning as a mechanism to enforce the dogmas of liberal ideology, the hope is to seize the Cathedral; Conservatives, by contrast, hope to open it up to debate, using Twitter as a pulpit through which the congregation will select the best ideology on rational grounds. Both beliefs are based on a fundamental misapprehension of what Twitter is, and how it has achieved the cultural prominence it has. And both groups, as well as society as a whole, would be better served if the entire edifice was levelled to the ground.

Twitter’s rise to prominence was a product of a specific set of material circumstances, the unintended effect of the demolition of legacy media platforms by Facebook, which destroyed the advertising revenue on which their journalism depended. During the 2010s, media companies reoriented themselves towards “the pivot to video”, producing short-form audiovisual content designed to be shared on Facebook. When Facebook suddenly changed its algorithms to deboost such content, fortunes were lost and the rising stars of the new media landscape, like VICE and Buzzfeed, came close to collapse. The resulting jobless diaspora of online journalists swiftly congregated on one platform: Twitter.

Twitter is at heart nothing more or less than a tool by which commentators measure their social capital, a social credit system for insecure writers. The most dangerous creature on Twitter is, after all, the aspirant blue check, whose desperate clamour for attention drives so much of the platform’s pathologies. From the moment he wakes up until the moment he goes to sleep, the journalist’s day is bookended, and punctuated by the platform: he scrolls through Twitter on his journey into the office; then, sitting at his desk, the first thing he does is open his laptop to scan Twitter. Stories, interviewees, heroes and villains are all identified on Twitter. Often contractually obliged to promote their work on Twitter, it becomes reality to the journalist, especially the opinion columnist, whose requirement to produce copy frequently outruns their capacity to formulate considered opinions.

Likewise, the value of a news story is almost entirely based on whether or not people are discussing it on Twitter. Its baneful effects are visible everywhere: the precipitous decline of Channel 4 News as a platform for serious journalism began, in the mid-2010s, as it reoriented its focus towards producing shareable video content for Twitter, aiming particularly at middle-aged liberals outraged by Trump and Brexit, the demographic to which its editors belong. For the online BBC journalist, Twitter is used as a means to circumvent impartiality rules, using often the obscurest of Twitter accounts to voice sentiments they are banned from expressing themselves: when a BBC article tells you that something has “sparked online debate”, prepare for a lecture on the Twitter fixation of the day, in which the quoted account merely ventriloquises the barely-hidden political believes of the journalist sharing it.

All journalism is now a Twitter performance: the journalist writes primarily for Twitter, and not his readership, their published work functioning as an esoteric text demonstrating allegiance to an in-group and hostility to an out-group: the readership, and the company paying for it are mere spectators to the essential work of Twitter performance. It is for this reason that journalists have become so reviled: their role has become so oriented to the production of discourse rather than the description of reality that the gulf between them and their readers widens ever more: Twitter and journalism are both locked in a fatal embrace.

Because of its outsized role in the journalistic imagination, Twitter has come to consume politics, just as it has journalism. When the MP David Amess was murdered by a jihadist, the government turned it into a narrative about Twitter trolls: not only because it was easier for them to talk about — they would, horror of horrors, have been criticised on Twitter for talking about the actual problem — but because it is the only thing they care about. If they have tweeted their disapproval of something it is within their power to fix, like Conservative MPs moaning about the migrant crisis, politicians feel satisfied their work has been done: the point is no longer to change the world, only to create discourse about it. 

Conservatives, who feel shut out of Twitter’s system of reward and approbation, have found themselves particularly entranced by the platform’s spell. They frequently declare that Twitter is not the real world, but the truth is worse, that the real world has become entirely suborned to Twitter. Similarly, it is easier for the police to demonstrate their political allegiances on Twitter than to prevent crimes; if every British Police force deleted its Twitter account, it would instantly be held in much higher regard by the public. But then no-one’s reputation is enhanced by Twitter: reading the thoughts of historians, barristers or public health professionals on the platform is a genuinely nihilistic experience. All have had their repute levelled by the platform which erodes every institution it touches.

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan warned back in the Sixties, “the new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village”. Anyone who has actually lived in a small, traditionally-structured village, and not merely fantasised about the premodern world on Twitter, will be aware of the claustrophobic intensity of such a state of being, the life monitored and circumscribed by village gossip and obscure feuds. As McLuhan remarked, “unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence”, forced on us by “the fact that everybody in the world has to live in the utmost proximity created by our electric involvement in one another’s lives”. The spasms of moral panic that pulse around the world from their origin in America’s neurotic taste-making class are a result of the world’s opinion-makers being locked together in the Twitter panopticon. 

In viewing the Twitter blue check as a coveted badge of status, both Musk and his anxious critics are entirely mistaken. The best analysis tends to come from anonymous accounts, freed from the combination of fear and need for approbation which consumes the blue check: if Twitter were an entirely anonymous platform, it might be a better functioning clearing-house for information and informed commentary. Rather than the presence of bots being Twitter’s original sin, as Musk has claimed, its greatest flaw is that it has turned Twitter’s “power users” into effective bots themselves, their every utterance shaped by the need to navigate Twitter’s treacherous rocks and shallows. 

Instead, the true mark of success as a commentator is freedom from needing to be on Twitter at all: who knows what Cormac McCarthy, say, thinks about Trump, or Black Lives Matter, or trans toilets? Whatever his opinion, he would sink in our estimation even if we agreed with him. This is why the Twitter presence, let alone addiction, of the super-rich is viewed with simultaneous bewilderment and disgust by the platform’s most committed users, toiling away in the take fields.. Why would anyone be here if they didn’t need to? How much weaker and more pathetic does Putin seem for the growing fixation on American culture war issues that manifests in his speeches? Rather than being outside the system of America’s cultural power, he has revealed himself as trapped here with the rest of us. Who can doubt that if a nuclear exchange began, we would find out on Twitter — the shared countdown, the snarky memes — or that many would spend their final minutes composing the perfect final tweet, the one last dunk on their enemies or expression of tribal allegiance?

If Musk, as is likely, destroys Twitter as it currently exists he will be doing the world a great service. By wrecking the current function it performs for commentators, he will free journalism and politics from its concentration in a single online madhouse, and in doing so, no doubt entirely unwittingly, help decentralise the spread of information. Like Legion in the New Testament, Twitter’s constellation of unhappy, clamouring souls must be driven off a cliff. When he learns, as he perhaps already has, that the platform will never be profitable, he should smash his new train set. The greatest power that will accrue to him, and the greatest gift he can offer civilisation, is not reforming Twitter through tweaks here and there but by loading its servers into a Space X rocket and firing them into the heart of the sun, forcing us all, finally, to log off.


Aris Roussinos is an UnHerd columnist and a former war reporter.

arisroussinos

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

52 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Let’s hope so. The primary reason I don’t go near Twitter is because it’s where “journalists” and media members go to suck each other’s toes or conduct infantile “own” feuds. And isn’t it time to stop using the word liberal as a descriptor? Surely it has long since lost its original meaning. The least tolerant, most ideologically rigid, unforgiving, aggressively punishing mind-hive people among us claim to be “liberal” (see Katherine Stock’s article).

Lorna Dobson
Lorna Dobson
1 year ago

Wow! You got it there. Maybe you should be writing for UnHerd. 🙂

Alex Tickell
Alex Tickell
1 year ago

Well said Allison, I’ve been using the inverted commas for over twenty years and they still don’t “get it”

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago

Spot on, Allison. This is precisely the reason why I have stayed as far away from Twitter as humanly possible. It’s an echo chamber for a supposedly “liberal” crowd that has twisted the very definition of liberal into something utterly unrecognisable and illiberal, more akin to dystopian fiction, rather than a place that promotes free expression and free exchange of ideas.

Retanot King
Retanot King
1 year ago

So bizarre that the author thinks that the class of liberals and the bloody ideological Left are the same.

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
1 year ago

Bravo, Aris, bravo! Well said, especially the final sentence.

tom j
tom j
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

I disagree. We’ve got a decent guy in charge, with some commitment to openness, and people won’t leave, it does as Aris says earlier, give Tories and Republicans some hope. But get rid of it, and something similar will just take its place, but controlled by the usual HR style suspects.

Jean Davis
Jean Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  tom j

I agree with you and have no complaints. I have found it’s a wonderful way to be introduced to new writers and then to follow up by checking out their Substack pieces. As a conservative, it’s also nice to see that I’m not alone in my thinking.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

The writer assumes firstly that we all use Twitter and secondly the users are incapable of giving up. The same of course applies to all other social media.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Ok, it’s only a couple of days past Halloween, so here’s your horrific thought for the season: is there an immutable rule of the universe that prevents someone creating a replacement for Twitter after Musk breaks it?
You’re welcome. 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by J Bryant
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Very much my reaction. Twitter has brand dominance. Destroy it and it will simply be replaced by something similar taking advantage of the vacancy. Better to find ways of reducing its harmful influence on the chattering class.

Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I think JB that the march of market forces have well and truly moved past the point at which a single new entrant could ever hope to replicate Twitter. It is/was a creature of its time, which is running out anyway as technology moves on. Hopefully though, we don’t have to wait for nature’s call, and the super-natural Mr. Musk does the decent thing and chucks it well and truly under the bus.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Agreed. It’s hard to imagine that a new entrant in the field would have much luck finding investors.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 year ago

I decided to take a look at Twitter when the Musk/Twitter controversy started a few months ago. The Twitter I have found is nothing like the Twitter described in this article. Aris Roussinos is joining in a mob attack on Twitter that it does not deserve. Twitter is not a place where it is easy to find extreme content of any kind. What I notice most is that it is mainly a tedious display of “prominent” people posting and their followers giving encouraging feedback. Author: I’m working on my new book. Followers: How wonderful…. Author: I’ve got writer’s block. Followers: How sad….and so on and on. As for it being a place for out of work journalists to post articles – a Tweet is short by definition. He should check out Substack for starving journalists. When Paul Krugman posts his economic analysis, it goes on for five or six concatenated tweets – so not the best place for an essay.
Roussinos’s comment about UK police Twitter posts made me take a look. The Sussex Police, for example, have nearly 200 thousand followers. Amazing – but their posts are mostly quite sensible – accidents, crimes, missing people.
In a way it is sensible to follow the local police, local and national politicians, entertainers…but then it is mind boggling that people have time to look at so many tweets. How do they do it and manage to work! Twitter distraction would seem to me to be the biggest issue.
I wonder if Mr Roussinos is actually just another player in the Scare/Worry process that extends news into a multidimensional 24 hour nightmare.
So – Musk takes over Twitter. He might do this, he might do that….and on and on and on.
Please wait to see what happens and not comment until it happens!

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Unfortunately the part of Twitter that relates to the business of journalism -and its interrelationship – is exactly as described by the author.
This needs to be regularly pointed out if there is any chance of getting journalistic quality back into mainstream news media.
As you point out, it is too early to tell whether Musks activities will help to reduce the problem.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Barton
Michael Layman
Michael Layman
1 year ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Maybe the authors are just drawing attention to themselves and seeking empathy, hoping they will buy their next work. Nothing wrong with that, but one has to realize it is a form of marketing.

Howard Gleave
Howard Gleave
1 year ago

Brilliant. Some stand-out quotes among many….”The opinion columnist, whose requirement to produce copy frequently outruns their capacity to formulate considered opinions.” Now, ain’t that just true.

And “The true mark of success as a commentator is the freedom from being on Twitter at all”.

David Harris
David Harris
1 year ago

I disengage with ANY news item (online, broadcast or paper) that quotes from Twitter. It’s the credibility given to it by mainstream news that is the problem. Take that away and, unless you are a Twitter user, it will have zero effect.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  David Harris

Isn’t that just ghastly! I share your pain. To cite Twitter to justify one’s point is to lose the argument.

Stephen Wood
Stephen Wood
1 year ago

Couldn’t agree more. Twitter is on the same level as the graffiti that got written on the desks at my rough North East comprehensive school.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Not having been on any soshul meeja, apart from UnheardRant, I am one of the few people on the planet who knows absolutely nothing about twitter, bookface or any of the other of these things that everyone seems to use, but I cannot for the life of me see why, other than opening one’s life up to the gestaplod to be done for hate crime?

Pete Williams
Pete Williams
1 year ago

You need to lighten up and learn to live your life like an open wound. Only then will you truly be freeeeeeeeee!!!!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

‘Twitter’ is yet another example of a perfectly decent English word being highjacked and reused to describe some contemporary perversion.
Otherwise, like you, I know nothing about it
..thank God!

Addendum: Hallelujah!
Mr Musk has culled 50% of the Twitterites. Perhaps there is a God after all?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago

I read yesterday that the remaining Twitterites now have their proverbial knickers in a giant knot, and I had the very same thought: Perhaps there is indeed a God.
I do wonder if the class action lawsuits some of them have apparently filed or are considering filing will result in substantial payouts either in the form of settlements of court-ordered penalties.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

It will still be “cheap at the price” as they say.

William Hickey
William Hickey
1 year ago

Aris is right about Twitter functioning as a communication arm of “The Cathedral.”

Consider: Progressives aren’t concerned that THEY will be expelled from Musk’s Twitter.

They are only concerned that the people they hate WON’T BE expelled.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago
Reply to  William Hickey

Because the people they hate (us?) could cause them cognitive dissonance by piercing their precious bubble and challenging the prevailing dogmas? I do not use Twitter and I haven’t used my Facebook account in 18+ months either. I must maintain it for work purposes as I use it to access and update my organisation’s account, but I post nothing personal. I have reached a point where social media have become a personal and social nuisance.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
1 year ago

Brilliant article.

Circular Point
Circular Point
1 year ago

To me twitter feels not unlike what’s happening here.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Circular Point

Oh, we’re a much better class of twits 😉

Leslie Cook
Leslie Cook
1 year ago

Levity. That’s what the author left out. True description of some “Twitterverses” but the beauty of Twitter is you can school your feed to give an entirely different experience. I do the anonymous thing mostly but there are academic and scientific circles that link credible sources. It is those links and discussion around them that truly inform, with the exception of a few real journalists like Greenwald and Taibbi. Blue checks are suspect and polls show many will not pay for it.
Back to the levity aspect. Twitter can be dead funny and the memes deadly on hypocrisy especially. Remember irony? It’s a thing.
BTW my Twitterverse has become fun again since Musk took over. Dramatically so and back to its irreverent roots. I was surprised by the extent of the change. Maybe because I follow less curated twits?

Laurian
Laurian
1 year ago

This is one of the best piece of journalism I’ve read in a long time. Thank you Aris!
As an avid consumer of tweets with an anonymous account I’m looking forward to log off from Twitter in its current format.
My only fear though is: what would come next? How long will be before a Twitter clone will reappear even if Elon destroys (or rather fundamentally changes) the beast? Is it Twitter that needs to be reformed or is it something else?

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 year ago

Before I even read the rest, thank you, Aris, for this one paragraph. Just a perfect summation of the insanity in which so many people seem to live.

“…The furore — online of course — about Twitter’s future direction is entirely downstream of the perception that its ownership is a valuable prize to be wrestled over, the world-island of political discourse whose mastery brings with it absolute power…”

rick stubbs
rick stubbs
1 year ago

This seems right, e.g., that the anxiety of many lib journalists is that Musk will change the social/professional credit mechanism they now rely upon and level a playing field formerly fixed in their favor. Not so complicated, and knowing this fact, will make it far more interesting and amusing to watch as things play out.

Last edited 1 year ago by rick stubbs
Mary C
Mary C
1 year ago

“Who can doubt that if a nuclear exchange began, we would find out on Twitter — the shared countdown, the snarky memes — or that many would spend their final minutes composing the perfect final tweet…”
Brilliant!

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

I doubt that Musk can afford to write off $44bn – an insane amount to pay for worthless opinions. He presumably has other plans. My guess is fewer contributors offering higher quality content and perhaps genuinely intelligent debate. As it were, an Amazon for journalism. If so, the rest of the media have reason to be afraid.

Katy Hibbert
Katy Hibbert
1 year ago

When the MP David Amess was murdered by a jihadist, the government turned it into a narrative about Twitter trolls …

Because they wanted to distract from the fact that, as usual, the perp was a Muzzie.

Sam Sky
Sam Sky
1 year ago

Some interesting analysis. And yet the author’s failure to mention that he was a video journalist for VICE that ended up being destroyed by Twitter – as ruthlessly as it itself sought to destroy the old journalism – comes across as a rationalisation for the hurt (which anyone involved in situations like this knows) that comes with a business failure to a company the author felt attached to.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

> For Right-wingers, who see Twitter functioning as a mechanism to enforce the dogmas of liberal ideology, the hope is to seize the Cathedral; Conservatives, by contrast, hope to open it up to debate
Nice essay and thanks for pointing out that Right-wingers are not Conservatives tho Conservatives will feel it impossible to be lefties in the current environment.

Nigel Blumenthal
Nigel Blumenthal
1 year ago

The greatest power that will accrue to him… is…by…forcing us all, finally, to log off.
Nobody needs to force you to log off. It’s a very simple action that you can take, entirely on your own, by simply deleting your account and the web access on your device. If you think that logging off is the answer (as i do), then we just need to never log on again, and develop an I-don’t-care attitude towards whatever junk the twitterati are pushing out this week.

Toby B
Toby B
1 year ago

Laughed out loud at that last sentence. For all of us addicts of the horror show, beautifully put.

Iwan
Iwan
1 year ago

Well said Aris! Thank you

Benjamin Holm
Benjamin Holm
1 year ago

I mean why can’t he just fix it, so that it serves as a better functioning town square?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
1 year ago

Then Musk would indeed be a hero

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago

Utterly stonking article, with a concluding sentence that echoes my heart’s dearest wish. I’d been thinking about cancelling subscription but this has persuaded me to hang around for a bit… chapeau old chap, many times over

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

A good analysis generally, but combined with an absurd expectation. People do not throw $44bn away just to make a political point. Well, not when it’s their own money anyway (when it’s other people’s money, multibillions on white elephants, blue moons and flying pigs is the norm).

Elon Musk is good at making money. He bought Twitter because he believes he can make it profitable. I would not bet against him where this is concerned.

Retanot King
Retanot King
1 year ago

A weak article that keeps on confusing honest and decent liberals with bloody ideological Leftists and burns the wet and dry together. Any author who can’t tell the difference between the Left and classical liberals should be avoided.

Retanot King
Retanot King
1 year ago

A weak article that keeps on confusing honest and decent liberals with bloody ideological Leftists and burns the wet and dry together. Any author who can’t tell the difference between the Left and classical liberals should be avoided.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago

The mainstream media of … when…USA in …which decade? Or here …. when? Has gone for good…firing the servers into the sun won’t free people to return to some version of the good old news days.
That boat has sailed and news is disintermediated in a way it never was in the Analogue era, and will remain so.
I think it is very democratic. Years ago the big news conferences every day were agenda setting in a way they cannot be now.
We are in a transition period still with broadcast, print and online legacy news (organisations, titles, news and comment shows, and individual journalists) still involved in toxic feedback loops with social media as the article says, but I think that is the problem rather than social media as such.
I can follow whatever police twitter I want, and the ONS, and any number of organisations directly, and then see informed critics directly comment , and discuss often, with the author(s).
The Ukraine war is a good point, there is far more first person video these days than reporter mediated news, it is usually hours, even days ahead of MSM reporting.
So I am not so negative about Twitter and social media in general and the reception Musk has had sort of confirms there was a wokey, ‘progressive’, liberal bias in the past that many people were very comfortable with.
Hopefully ordinary people will continue to learn how to navigate a very noisy public space well, and , as the article says, if many academics, journalists, historians etc come out looking diminished, that is because they have usually said daft things.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago

The mainstream media of … when…USA in …which decade? Or here …. when? Has gone for good…firing the servers into the sun won’t free people to return to some version of the good old news days.
That boat has sailed and news is disintermediated in a way it never was in the Analogue era, and will remain so.
I think it is very democratic. Years ago the big news conferences every day were agenda setting in a way they cannot be now.
We are in a transition period still with broadcast, print and online legacy news (organisations, titles, news and comment shows, and individual journalists) still involved in toxic feedback loops with social media as the article says, but I think that is the problem rather than social media as such.
I can follow whatever police twitter I want, and the ONS, and any number of organisations directly, and then see informed critics directly comment , and discuss often, with the author(s).
The Ukraine war is a good point, there is far more first person video these days than reporter mediated news, it is usually hours, even days ahead of MSM reporting.
So I am not so negative about Twitter and social media in general and the reception Musk has had sort of confirms there was a wokey, ‘progressive’, liberal bias in the past that many people were very comfortable with.
Hopefully ordinary people will continue to learn how to navigate a very noisy public space well, and , as the article says, if many academics, journalists, historians etc come out looking diminished, that is because they have usually said daft things.

Gavin McNee
Gavin McNee
1 year ago

Here’s hoping! Twitter is an absolute cesspit.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago

Twitter and the rest of the leftist kabal are not “liberals” in the US meaning ie Social Democrats – or the older meaning – ie Hume, Mill, Rousseau etc. they follow Marxist Leninism and its illegitimate offspring “socialism in one country”. They cannot co-exist with democracy because the average human is not stupid enough to believe that these muppets have found the keys to the human condition when 4000 years of philosophy agrees it probably can’t be done. This explains why commies and socialists (national or internationalist) only seek de-facto power – for example twitter -because they have no ability to gain de-jure power. Twitter will die out like the USSR and 3rd Reich but if Musk gives it helping hand good for him. I am not a fan of his cars, or rockets or paypal but i am sure he’s got some good in him unlike the banally evil characters that populate twitter’s offices.

Last edited 1 year ago by mike otter
Jacob Mason
Jacob Mason
1 year ago

While agreeing with some points here, this line of thinking seems to me unrealistic. In a shared global internet, something else will just replace it.
I would probably prefer Musk having oversight than most others who would want the job.

rue boileau
rue boileau
1 year ago

I’m truly baffled by the blind faith the Muskans place in their savior. Yesterday I read that Musk is keeping Twitter’s chief sensor Yoel Roth, who once called Trump officials nazis, when the real ‘nazis’ have always been Democrats.
Not a good sign.