He’s the world’s richest man for a reason.
Even if he doesn’t wind up buying another share of Twitter stock, he has forced the spotlight on Big Tech censorship in a way that nothing else has, not even the defenestration of Donald Trump.
He has also highlighted the hypocrisy of the bluechecks in two crucial ways: first, they had nothing to say when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post but are now screaming how unfair allowing a wealthy person to control a major journalism platform would be.
Second, they have defended Twitter’s censorship on the grounds that it’s a private platform. Okay, so a private person wants to buy it. He’s got the money, and he can do whatever he wants with it, according to what you have been yelling at me for years. Right? It’s a private platform?
Or is it? Maybe it’s quasi-public under California law because it’s so large and such an important venue for speech and journalism.
Or does that theory only apply when someone you DON’T like wants to run it?
0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)
Skip for now
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.