The Problem with Elon

He wants to control speech, not free it

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” John Steinbeck, who won both the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for his fiction writing, never said that. It was Canadian author Ronald Wright, in his 2004 book about societal collapse titled A Short History of Progress. Alas, powerful quotes tend to find their ways toward more famous mouths to give them added weight. Pro tip: Every time you see a quote allegedly by Einstein, google that shit. He’s the most misattributed person in history.

Anyway, Elon Musk sucks, and so do the people who simp for him.

I really hate that word simp, because it’s commonly used by men who hate women, such as incels and self-proclaimed “men’s rights activists”. A definition of simp is “a slang insult for men who are seen as too attentive and submissive to women, especially out of a failed hope of winning some entitled sexual attention or activity from them.” It’s from the word simpering, which is to performatively attempt to ingratiate yourself to another. Incels and MRAs use the word to describe any man who stands up for women’s rights and against misogyny.

But I’m turning it back on those dumbshits who defend Elon, or any billionaire. Perhaps they believe that by supporting him that some of his money-making magic will rub off on them, and they too will be awash in riches and be able to buy women rather than have them be attracted to them via having a non-toxic personality. Or, they may dream of Elon actually giving them money. Another pro tip: People don’t become billionaires by giving away their money.

Back to Wright’s quote. It has the word “socialism” in it, which is certain to raise the ire of many who consider anything to the left of being allowed to hunt the homeless for sport to be fucking communism. A lot of people don’t want a government that taxes the rich to raise the living standards of the poor, because multitudes of poor believe they’re going to strike it rich one day. Instead of pursuing a path that improves their and most everyone else’s stations in life markedly, they’re chasing some unattainable dream, one that usually ends up taking them nowhere.

They see people like Elon and Trump and Bezos as self-made men rather than those who came from immense privilege and inherited wealth. Billionaire-controlled media helped influence such beliefs.

A generalization about billionaires is that they didn’t get that way from being generous, but via ruthlessness. In unrestrained capitalism, competition is king. And to outdo your competitors and become the most powerful involves having the cash reserves to invest in things like research and development, expansion, marketing, lobbying etc. All those things take money, which means pinching pennies, cutting corners. It means paying employees the bare minimum and crushing unions. It means stock manipulation and unethical behavior and battalions of lawyers and lobbyists to push the absolute limits of what you can get away with to grow and acquire, grow and acquire. Because if you don’t do it, someone else will and they become the billionaire instead of you.

There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire.

Musk inherited wealth and did all sorts of sleazy things to become a billionaire. That’s not what this is about. Want to know more about his rise? Google it. This is about Twitter, and why Elon’s quest to own it is a bad thing.

As of last November, Twitter was the ninth most popular website, with 2.43 billion visits a month. Facebook kicks Twitters ass with 11.74 billion a month, which might be why I make way more money off Facebook. Or maybe it’s because I’m longwinded and don’t really like Twitter. Anyway, a lot of people do like Twitter, and rely upon it for information, even though a lot of that information is bad.

Speaking of the spread of bad information, we need to talk about the Fairness Doctrine.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Ronald Reagan. He slashed support for those with mental health problems, resulting in a spike in homelessness and crime. He took a “let them die” approach to the AIDS crisis. He declared war on unions and effectively destroyed the American middle class, not to mention that giving tax cuts to the rich didn’t trickle down for shit, screwing future generations’ dreams of things like ever owning a place to live.

Reagan also played a role in the nuking of the Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Doctrine. The fuck is that? It came about in 1949. I’ll just screen cap what the Congressional Research Service had to say:

In other words, your news agency couldn’t go hard right or hard left on the topic of, say, abortion. Coverage needed to be balanced.

It also had a “personal attack rule.” That meant if they were going after people involved in public issues, they had to give them a week’s warning, along with the script of the broadcast, and a chance to defend themselves via the same broadcaster. What’s more, there was a “political editorial rule” that said if a broadcaster endorsed a specific candidate, then they had to let other qualified candidates respond via their facilities. Continues below …

Get stuff like this in your inbox. Click the green button.

It was Reagan’s FCC that repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and that’s why we got Fox News. I mean, if you believe the memes on Facebook that’s what happened. Except it wasn’t.

Let’s back up a bit. The Fairness Doctrine was seen by many as a dinosaur for a different time, when media was scarce and had more limited broadcasting methods. The criticisms were that it violated the First Amendment, and that’s the excuse the FCC used to say they should punt it. But then the Democratic-held House of Representatives and Senate said wait a fucking minute. To pre-empt it the Dems tried to get the Fairness Doctrine enshrined as law via the Fairness in Broadcasting Act, and they got it passed in the house by a big margin and in the Senate by a vote of 59 to 31.

But then Reagan said fuck you and vetoed it, and the Fairness Doctrine was toast a few months later via a unanimous vote of the FCC commission. Three of the four commissioners had been appointed by Reagan, one by Nixon.

The Fairness Doctrine wasn’t some amazing cure-all for misinformation. At the time of its enactment the number of media outlets the average American was exposed to was paltry compared to today. We don’t need to “bring back” the Fairness Doctrine. It’s outdated, and wouldn’t fix the current issues, and no, we can’t really blame Fox News bursting onto the scene in 1996 on the demise of the doctrine, because it’s a cable news source and therefore the doctrine didn’t even apply to it, because “broadcast” is distinct from cable, satellite, and internet. Not only that, but the Fairness Doctrine was pretty toothless anyway. Even when it was in effect the enforcement was shit.

By the way, that whole thing about Fox News changing its accreditation from “News” to “Entertainment” so that they had no legal requirement to report the facts is all bullshit. Reason being is that there is no governing body that accredits the news. It’s not a thing. Not for Fox, or for CNN or MSNBC or whatever.

The fuck does any of this have to do with Elon? Elon wants to control the way people think, and Twitter would be his initial vehicle. Rupert Murdoch is an example of a far-right fucknuckle who uses his media empire to toxify the airwaves with overly conservative voices. What follows is a generalization, but it has merit. People who are indoctrinated into being outraged by everything slightly liberal will vote conservative and those conservative governments allow billionaires to rape the planet and not pay taxes. In the process, society becomes ever more divided, the Capitol Building gets stormed by terrorists, and some guy (allegedly) tases his balls and fucking dies.

Elon is just another piece of shit billionaire who wants to be able to do whatever the fuck he wants, and part of that involves controlling the narrative. Yesterday NPR reported that Musk said he’d secured the money to buy Twitter. Twitter is fighting back via a “poison pill” strategy that makes it more expensive for Musk to purchase the company, but if he’s determined he may be able to buy off enough board members to achieve his aim of owning Twitter and taking it private.

And that would be bad. The richest man on the planet didn’t become so by giving a fuck about other people. Musk refers to himself as a “free speech absolutist” and that Twitter is a “de facto public town square” and therefore should serve as a platform for “free speech around the world”. He’s trying get around the “Congress shall make no law” part of the First Amendment by saying that Twitter has a “societal imperative” to let people use a company’s technology to say whatever the fuck they want. I’m sure the fact that it would allow him to control any negative press about him or his company, as well as engage in stock manipulation, is purely coincidental. Sarcasm.

The First Amendment was never intended to apply to private companies. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok etc. have a vested interest in moderating what is allowed on their sites because if they let it run wild then it will be overwhelmed with spam and threats and porn and hate speech and incitements to violence. This would be bad for business, as it would drive away both subscribers and advertisers who don’t want to be associated with that kind of stuff. They don’t always do a great job of moderation, it’s true, but they were unified in punting Trump after his failed coup attempt on January 6, 2021. Plenty of others spewing hate and/or harmful misinformation have been banned or demonetized.

If Elon gets his wish, don’t be surprised if he lets Trump back on Twitter.

Musk is full of shit and a total hypocrite. It’s not that he would really want to let free speech run wild on Twitter. It’s that he wants to control speech even more, allowing information that he finds agreeable to flourish, while suppressing anything he doesn’t want people to see. Billions are tuning in and not too discerning when it comes to being swayed and even radicalized by bullshit information. Allowing one superrich egomaniac to control information provided to a vast portion of society is a bad thing.

But! But! Saudi Prince! But Putin!

I’ve heard that comeback from many an Elon simp. Yes, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is a 5.2% shareholder in Twitter, making him the second-largest stakeholder after Musk. But Alwaleed isn’t trying to buy the entire company and transform it into his personal broadcaster of misinformation. And Putin doesn’t have a personal Twitter account, just a “President of Russia” account with a rather paltry 1.7 million followers. The account hasn’t posted anything since March 15.

The Fairness Doctrine wasn’t going to stop this bullshit. What are we to do? America and the world have a serious misinformation problem, and there are no easy fixes, there is no stopping it. But a collaboration between government and business—only four parent companies dominate the social media landscape—can disincentivize and demonetize the worst misinformation and hate speech. There is no repairing the hole in the bottom of the boat, so you gotta keep bailing like a motherfucker. Preventing Elon Musk from taking total control of Twitter is just another bucket of toxic sludge tossed over the side.

Like this? Feel free to share it and don’t forget to:  

Get both volumes of my sweary history books ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY SH!T WENT DOWN.