It's simple to exaggerate the significance of Twitter's survival or demise, and this is true not just because the vast majority of people have always made the wise choice to avoid using it.
Elon Musk's revival of one of Silicon Valley's stupidest ideas—that instant, unrestricted publication of "free speech" is an end in itself, an unalloyed good, and ...
...a result of loosely regulated technological platforms—may be more significant than his vehicle-fire management style management of his new $44 billion business.
Musk went through the same intellectual development more quickly, which was appropriate given his widely praised genius.
He claimed last month that his tolerance of an account that tracked his private jet using public records was proof of his "commitment ...
...to free speech." Last week, he suspended that account as well as those of several well-known journalists who write about him.
Musk expelled the musician formerly known as Kanye West earlier this month for posting an image of a Jewish Star of David combined with a ...
...Nazi swastika, only days after he declared an amnesty for harassers, bigots, and charlatans suspended under Twitter's previous ownership.
Even though Trump is being looked into by Congress and the Justice Department for inciting the violence of January 6, 2021, Musk still vocally wished for him to return to the platform.
He contended that the former president may not have broken Twitter's policy against inciting violence and was instead a victim of political bias. This exemplifies Musk's misuse of the right to free speech.
The First Amendment was intended to protect publishers' and other citizens' expression from people like Trump, not the ...
...other way around. At the time of his removal from Twitter, Trump held the most influential position in the country.
Trump was also engaging in forms of expression that are infamously not permitted by the Constitution by encouraging violence and sedition.
As stifling as Twitter itself is the notion that a publisher must distribute any official statement as a necessary corollary of free speech, let alone participate in state-sponsored violence.
None of this is meant to ignore the likelihood that every Big Tech profession of absolute free speech, or any other principle ...
...for that matter, is reverse-engineered to justify procedures created with the sole intention of maximizing profits.
Regardless of his intentions, Musk's argument is widely regarded as being one that requires serious consideration.
In contrast to the lazy and self-serving ideas of freedom advanced by Musk and Zuckerberg, the First Amendment actually exists because speech is significant, powerful, and dangerous.
We must defend free speech because it is important, not because it is unimportant.