MEDIAWATCH: Beyond the screams of the woke, why Musk buying Twitter is really, really, really bad

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
29
1501

If the woke all quit Twitter because Musk has bought it, how will they tell us that we are all racist, transphobic, misogynists 24/7?

To our faces?

Come on!

Twitter is the land of the woke, it has given them more power to cancel than any other platform, now with a heteronormative cis male Tech Bro owning it, the woke will be forced to choose between their deplatforming dogma and leave or swallow a dead rat and stay.

Why don’t all the woke who are claiming to have left Twitter start their own social media platform?

Wokitter would be a great chance to virtue signal to other people who only agree with everything you say.

Problem solved!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

However, beyond the schadenfreude of watching the woke scream about losing their Lynch mob cancellation power, there is a fundamental danger in Musk owning Twitter.

In 2010, the 388 richest individuals owned more wealth than half of the entire human population on Earth

By 2015, this number was reduced to only 62 individuals

In 2018, it was 42

In 2019, it was down to only 26 individuals who own more wealth than 3.8 billion people.

And in 2021, 20 people owned more than 50% of the entire planet.

This week the richest man on Earth bought one of the most important social media platforms.

The Big Tech Tzars have manipulated our collective fear, ego, anger and insecurities through social media in a way that has led to the largest psychological civil war ever launched against one another.

Meanwhile, the planet burns and every aspect of our existence is monetarised for big data to sell us more stuff we can’t afford. We are alienated and anesthetized by a consumer culture that keeps us neurotic and disconnected. Our work, our existence, every move we make are all built to suck money to a minority class that sits above us while under neoliberalism, globalization, financialization, and automation, our existence as individuals has only become more disposable.

This isn’t progress.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

29 COMMENTS

  1. So who should be running Twitter, or other social media? Governments? NGOs? People Councils?
    A possible solution is to make those social media corporations into essential services, under the law, therefore must obey the local laws, pay taxes, and allow the Government some oversight…

    • True. Someone has to own it, and since Musk is a free speech proponent I’m comfortable with him owning it rather than a Zuckerberg or Bezos.

      Not sure about any government oversight though, sounds like code for another ‘Public Interest Journalism Fund’ manipulation of open and free media.

      • BG how is government giving funding through a selection panel for any journalist to write public interest stories remotely equivalent to oversight for knuckle dragging f wits talking crap on a social media platform?

      • BG Agreed but there’s the old problem with a ‘benevolent dictator’. Musk is not immortal (or infallible). At some point someone else will likely have all that consolidated power and a different set of values.

        In addition to free speech he will also have to address platform governance over the long term.

  2. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and Carlos Slim’s interests the same with New York Times. Why is there no issue if the billionaire tilts left?

    • FFS Frank, you have been on this site long enough (and seen how the left operate) to know that ALL media is right wing if even only one article is criticising the left, and by pointing it out the poster is a white supremist nazi being paid for by National/ACT.

      For shame on you Frank!

  3. Have a look at the employee political bias within these massive corporations:
    https://notthebee.com/article/i-fear-elon-musk-could-undermine-the-ideological-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-at-twitter-which-currently-maintains-a-careful-balance-of-987-for-one-side
    Read the graph.
    Twitter =98.7% Democrat (by donation).
    All the other huge corporations listed skew massively Democrat.
    Where were the tears for balance? How could an organization so skewed by a fair arbiter of truth? It wasn’t.
    – banning trump but not the Saudi’s or Iranians for example.

    Establishment corporations = Democrat. Even Tesla.
    Where is the extra harm in one politically non aligned rich odd ball owning Twitter?
    It’s got to be a good thing.

    • So it’s Ok for Bezos to own WaPo but not Musk to own Twitter? It’s a legitimate question that nobody on the left seems to be able to answer.

      And please try to answer it without starting with a personal insult – it’s very Mallard.

      • Frank I agree it’s a legitimate question. My only point would be that, and sorry if my non twitter use is showing through, I don’t see how they are the same. Washington Post claims to be a newspaper/news organisation of sorts whereas twitter to me is just a platform for any person to say whatever they like ( within reason apparently). I could not care less if Musk owns twitter because I would not even think to look at twitter for “news”.

        • The problem is a lot of the young, hip journalists are on twitter, as are their social group. Both they and many in the political class often mistake twitter as representative of the wider public opinion. It is a strong social influence for selective news coverage, selective social praise/outrage and the creation of elite echo chambers which shape how the public are ‘supposed’ to think about issues.

  5. The money Musk has “spent” hasn’t disappeared – it, including their massive premium over value, will go to the existing shareholders to do with as they please. The people (Souixe Wills for example) saying he should have spent it on vaccines or something have no understanding of how things work.
    Some of the rhetoric coming from (presumably) otherwise sane people is bizarre. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/elon-conquers-the-twitterverse?s=r
    Good on Elon for helping to foster genuinely free speech.

  6. Just a dumb question…
    Why is everyone so concerned about a private business doing private business as if there were a birthright to benefit from what it offers? If someone doesn’t like the deal, close your account. Even better, hey, no sweat, surely you can set up your own ‘chat’ platform? There are plenty apps to get you going.

  7. I really don’t get what all the fuss about.

    I have never understand why so many people place so much credence into the virtual sh*thole that is twitter. It is totally over-valued and has way too much influence on contemporary issues by jove

    • Yeah, some people go on as if they just lost a leg or had an organ stolen. I guess when your whole world is ‘internet’ and the ‘smart’ phone, then that’s your whole world.

    • My day has just become immeasurably better by someone using the expression “by jove” , something that would probably be lost on most of the Twitterati

    • yer not wrong X
      imagine if you will…
      newsreader smiling, perfect teeth, tie, sat behind a desk

      ‘and tonight on the 6 o’clock news we have some bloke from the pub telling us about something he knows nothing about….but he is half pissed and loud, so here he is

      or alternatively

      here’s professor tame rent-a-quote emeritus chair of the dept of philosopher and relative political truth at wellie tech, to talk about the importance of social media to intersectional discourse and the price of cabbage

      but of course for the faux journalist today a twatter ‘outrage’ has gone from ‘standby on a slow news day’ to ‘go to’ 1st source on any issue…it’s cheap easy and you don’t have to leave your padded seat.

  8. Random question – as someone who just got banned from The Standard for three months for something fairly innocuous -is The Standard worse than Twitter for censorious behaviour?
    Asking here as the general vibe is significantly less hostile and more open minded than that other place.

    • The Standard was founded and is still run by(!) a computer guy whose major prob was the over-control of Muldoon. The people who go there are hounded by completely disproved Neolibs. But then that’s the Labour Party. Folk who go there don’t believe in the only strength of the people, solidarity. That it’s the major ‘Left’ blog explains why I’m thinking of voting for the Maori Party. 84ist Labour is entirely disproved.

      • Thanks for the info. They do seem very easily triggered, esp that “moderator” guy who goes by the enigmatic name “Incognito”

        • Know incognito reasonably well, he and Lprent being instrumental in my own ‘excommunication’. They both seem like dogs let off their leashes on a lifetime commission. Not because of talking for the people but on the basis of privilege. The privilege of the Labour ’84 freemarketeer middle-class ‘ merit-worthy’.

          My comment about solidarity refers to all the often Left folk who visit there and don’t do a damned thing about the people picked off by these two ( rightest and thus wrong) loons. It is against free speech and also the necessary solidarity of the people to achieve anything against the powerful. The Left is based on principle, the Right on power. It is elementarily disgusting. Not least this place and Bowalley Road refusing to address it.

          The true Left political ‘talkers’ are bowed from defeats. They don’t recognise the intrinsic sympathy of all we who grew up in the Welfare State. Let alone many good talkers of that generation. Bernard, Max, Sue and more.

  9. Watch twitter turn on us peons with force. The violence that is about to erupt against working people demands for a fair deal, is about to go hand in hand with a media assault the likes of which we have never seen.

Comments are closed.