He's grappling with his own vision for free speech - and pressure from advertisers and Europe. He would be better off sticking to First (Amendment) principles. Then again, it's not my $44 billion.
With a 40% increase in death in the 18-64 age group, SOMETHING is equivalent to people being fed into ovens. The result is the same. A massive amount of people are dying. Humans are dying off. There is no bigger story right now. But few are covering it.
Mark Crispin Miller is trying. A few others like GrandeInganno in Italy is trying. We see it in the news but the sheeple don't. All these people dropping on football fields, on TV reporting (this week about a dozen) but people don't want to see.
There is a study out that shows the body's own T-Cells attack the MRNA spike that's in the cardiac tissue and the T-Cells disrupt the natural electric rhythm of the heart. Perhaps that's why there are no symptoms leading up to the sudden death. And obviously the spike doesn't stay in the arm... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5
Society of actuaries. 2021 Life Insurance Survey. Senator Ron Johnson just hosted another forum in Washington. The stats were devastating and shocking.
Hello Mr Alex, I really hope Elon reads your Substack. You sure could give him excellent guidance! I’m in awe of your work and never regretted joining. I rarely comment because I could never say it better than this articulate group does!
Yesterday Senator Ron Johnson held a COVID summit in Washington. Ed Dowd testified and his stats were devastating. I grabbed a screen shot of his slide with the 40% increase. But this is not the first time I have seen this number referenced. I don’t have a supporting link to that particular slide. I don’t think I can put an image in these comments, but i will provide a couple links that mention the 40%. The actuaries at the insurance companies know their numbers. That is the basis of their business.
Below is an excerpt from an article. Here is the link to the article.
Ed Dowd, a securities analyst, reported data from Group Life insurance policies that cover healthy, employed people ages 18 to 64. The death rate in this group jumped 40% in the third quarter of 2021, coincident with federal vaccine mandates for large employers who buy these Group Life policies.
Free speech *is* dangerous to authority. That is why they restrict it - so peasants don't wake up to the scam of being taken advantage of in most aspects of life.
While I'm a free speech absolutist ("hate speech is free speech"), I can also see that Musk has to deal with certain commercial realities. Twitter isn't going to fund itself, and the advertisers were wrongly scared off. As Alex notes, it's only week 4, and there's a lot to come. So far, I think Musk's leadership is an enormous improvement, and I'm willing to (so far) give him the benefit of the doubt. What other major business leader has taken such a principled stand and has been so open and transparent about what he's doing?
People have likely forgotten, but the early days of Tesla were incredibly tumultuous, with tons of employee churn in the executive ranks. You can interview folks extensively, but you really don't know what you're getting until they've worked for you for a while. I think we'll likely see something similar at Twitter: a lot of employee churn, and a lot of trial and error.
There's only so much of Elon to go around. This was amply demonstrated with the firing of Jim Baker in the wake of the release of the Hunter Biden discussions. It's clear Elon issued a high-level order, but had no idea how it was being executed on the ground.
So let's give him some time to work this out. I think he's doing an amazing job so far, and this is a very positive development for the free speech everywhere.
Free speech IS dangerous, that’s why it is number one in the Bill of Rights. But it is not dangerous to a free society, just those who do not want a free society.
What amazes me is how many young people don't believe in free speech. They have been taught at college and elsewhere that speech is violence, bullying or some other dangerous activity that makes them think censorship is OK. IT'S NOT OK AND NEVER IS EXCEPT IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES!!
It disappeared before the pandemic but you must have not noticed as it was restricted in certain aspects you were not paying attention to. For instance, Adam Schiff called for big tech to censor everyone who spoke out against vaccines back in Feb. 2019 and big tech did. Entire groups with hundreds of thousands were deleted from FB.
The pandemic was the most widespread ban on free speech but free speech has been chipped away by the banning and replacing of words. For example, illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, immigrant and finally migrant.
I think part of the problem here -- why so many have been persuaded to view speech itself as dangerous - is that a foundational argument in support of the First Amendment and free speech in general may appear to be crumbling. This argument says that even ideas that most would agree are hateful should be expressed so that others can identify them as hateful, vow never to adopt them and persuade others to think similarly. If people are losing their ability to think critically, their willingness to engage in debate and their inclination toward at least some empathy for others (as I think is happening in our culture today), some people will conclude it's safer just to ban hate. Too bad hate can't be controlled in that fashion.
The larger problem is that hate can't be defined, so it can never be used as a metric. The word has been weaponized by the left as a way of pushing agendas that were illogical, but by introducing hate as some form of subjective metric, would allow them to win on an emotional basis.
Free speech is for people who process things in a logical manner, but logic has never been been a strong suit of the Left.
Humanity can never agree on a definition of hate, nor should it empower flawed human(s) -- especially including governments -- to promulgate and enforce a definition. From my faith based perspective, however, I strongly suspect God has a definition. Would I advocate using that definition, even if I could state it succinctly, to silence others? No, that only results in more hate. When Jesus said "Out of the heart, the mouth speaks," I think He was asking people to reflect on what their words say about themselves and address their own spiritual condition. Not everyone may agree, but I fully support First Amendment principles as the best approach we have in the here and now.
Judge Pell in the Skokie,IL Neo-Nazi case, finding for the ACLU (and their Jewish lawyer) and the Nazis: "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an idea may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."
I was born in 1956, so I was taught Free Speech meant allowing Nazis to march down the street of small towns, and why that was important.
If you look at the breakdown of our country over the past couple of decades it's become apparent that woke/Left policy can't survive alongside free speech, so it's fought it in every manner possible.
Elon can't possibly totally fix Twitter in 4 weeks, or probably even a year, but he is working in the correct direction. In the end, Alex and Ye will have to be back on, and users of Twitter will have to use their 'block' feature to protect their fragile selves from words.
I think that the first action that the new speaker of the House should consider is one that forces a vote of support for the First Amendment, as it's currently written. Let's get our elected officials to take a stand.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Be careful what you wish for. We do need a new Constitutional Convention. We do not have a deal as a country any more. We do not have an agreed upon set of values and principles. Since I like the ones we put on paper 250 years ago, I don't want to roll the dice on what comes out if we try it again, but we may not have any choice if we want to move forward.
It is almost like an amazing Covid reporter for 2 years who complained about Government overreach then says he will vote for Biden and authoritarianism over Trump.
First let me say I agree with every word of this article. I think my favorite part is about disagreeing with Naomi but not stopping her from speaking.
Estimado Alex Berenson: I firmly disagree with your estimate of the value of Ivermectin in a couple of ways. But you, unlike all the people on the officialdom side of the vaxx debate, went on to debate publicly, an excellent advocate for Ivermectin, Pierre Kory. I will leave it up to each observer who won that debate.
But the fact that you did actually have that public debate shows a kind of integrity orders of magnitude greater than any shown by the promoters of the vaxx, or those who censored all of us who had reasonable, or even absurd objections to the the vaxx itself, and the rights-destroying policies used to coerce the public.
It is time people began to look at the gestalt of this situation. The various components taken overall suggest something a lot bigger is at work. Censorship, coerced use of experimental and dangerous medications, ineffective at that, and the curious groups that were exempted from the vaxx mandates, like illegal migrants, and police in Canada but not the military.
This is more than a mere "Qui bono" as some may conclude looking at recent reveals of EU contracts and Trudeau entanglements with component companies. Governments and those who make it up, could have bought the vaxx without coercing its use and still profited.
Perhaps the main efficacy of the mRNA shots is actually its ability to protect governments from the rights of the people.
Full disclosure: I don't have a Twitter account, but I've been watching the Twitter drama.
1. "Ye" is a mentally ill asshole and should be able to display it. (Bret Weinstein made the excellent point last week that we need to be able to identify antisemitism. Hiding it or ignoring it doesn't work out well.)
2. If the EU doesn't like the USA's First Amendment, it can go pound sand...starting with the sand on Omaha Beach.
3. Taylor Lorenz is a fraud and deserves to be exposed as one. Let her post! And let her whimper, sob, and feel "unsafe."
4. Dr. Malone and all the other Fauci challengers should be reinstated. Maybe their comments would jog Fauci's memory--since he can't seem to recall very much.
BIG QUESTION: Why on EARTH did Musk keep Jim Baker? What POSSESSED him? Ditto for Yoel Roth?
BIGGER QUESTION: Did Musk think it would be EASY to "fix" Twitter?
Amen sister. And just as Trump made the mistake of trusting those lying basards Fauci, Walensky and Berk, so has Musk obviously trusted the Marxist sympathetic advisers still within Twitter's ranks.
Absolute free speech on Twitter is probably not going to work. Twitter is a company, not a government. I think it's a bit disingenuous to write this piece and not mention Matt Taibbi. Government skirting the 1st amendment to sway an election through a company is far more dangerous than Ye being booted for being a self-righteous a-hole.
Musk should say it, tweet it and print it on a t-shirt and sell it.
"I believe in free speech and debate; Twitter is an American company and the First Amendment is at the core of what it means to be American and the antidote to bad speech is good speech and I will not bend the knee for any country or advertiser that does not agree. If you want to ban us, ban us. If you don’t want to advertise on us, don’t advertise on us."
It is always so interesting when people like Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz decry the "open market place of ideas" (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson) , as a free twitter would be, as a "hellscape" it captures their fear that their ideas can't compete. She and her ilk only have any traction in an idea vacuum devoid of opposing viewpoints and without active censorship, they will become irrelevant. Imagine a mob with only one megaphone, then suddenly, everyone present has a megaphone. A cacophony for sure, but isn't that life anyway? All this information and data swirling around, unimpeded by government control or "moderation" by some faceless goof in Silicon Valley, Seattle or Portland who only actually works 4 hours a month. Each person has to do his own "due diligence" and determine the accuracy or veracity of what they consume.
But that is our right. At least the theory. And now that we know for sure that the Biden/Obama governments actively colluded, persuaded, or pressured big tech to censor opposing viewpoints and damaging facts, we are right to be skeptical about any "big" anything and should always follow the Rule of Gold. Follow the money, or look to see who benefits. Big Pharma??? again, follow the money. Why isn't Big Pharma manufacturing anti-biotics and common pain relievers/anti-inflammatories in the US? No money in it. May be time to dust off those old Anti-Trust laws and level the playing field. In all areas.
But because there’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful, the value of “reporting” for a narrative-pushing media outlet is basically zero. Take off the NBC News label, and what distinguishes Collins from any of the other of thousands of paid hacks spewing the company line?
Even worse, because he’s simply a narrative-pushing presstitute, whatever audience he may have built up will only continue to listen to him as long as he continues to push the narrative. Just look how fast they turned on Elon Musk and J.K. Rowling. If Collins was forced to be a “Substack Man” and get paid based on voluntary subscriptions from his readers, would he even be able to do it?
Based on the engagement at Taylor Lorenz’s Substack (which she’s still pushing in her Twitter handle!), the answer is a resounding NO. Meanwhile on the platform, established names like Taibbi and Greenwald continue to grow their support — as do anonymous cats and even dead English guys.
It is disappointing and scary -- appreciate your analysis Alex. Elon has some good instincts, kind of like Trump did...he knows things are not right...but he doesn't have a correct and consistent ideological foundation, and he doesn't go far enough, and eventually it will be too late. Why would he take a vote to reinstate Trump or anyone else?...why weren't all accounts reinstated immediately on the takeover?...why are some accounts not to be reinstated? if not by court order and no laws are being broken. Why would he consider committees to moderate content?...it takes time and energy to have this destructive thing -no good can come of it. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
The Amnesty Ban fix wasn't done for an obvious reason: advertiser money. Twitter was being bled by a Fascist Left Dem group targeting advertisers and it was working.
What do you think Tim Cook and Elon were talking about at Apple? How nice the grounds were? Tim Cook was a representative of the globalist club who want censorship enforced. Elon had to surrender the amnesty and now it's down to a crawl.
It's a big dance and it's only begun. Musk has a goal to make Twitter independent of needing advertisers but that's a vision not in the sights yet. So, those banned are now seeing far fewer accounts being freed. I saw a joke that Roger Stone was now free but the pillow guy, Mike Lindell remains among the Damned of the Banned.
If a US court determines that Twitter has been acting on behalf of the US government in censoring speech, perhaps the court will determine that Twitter can no longer censor legal speech. Then hopefully the EU won't be a threat anymore.
Just need a majority of judges. Yes, her ignorance was stunning. But perhaps she wasn't ignorant of the facts. Perhaps she is just in favor of centralization and control by the government. Either way, scary.
You need four SCOTUS judges to agree to hear a case; five for a win. Don't think any Justice wants to see pure ignorance coming out of their mouths on the record. Sotomayor clearly believed in some frightening anti-science on the mortality around the ChiCom virus. It was stunning.
I hear you. It concerns me when I know more than Supreme Court justices, especially when their decision impacts our freedoms. And the virus is as much a US virus as a China virus.
Haha! You figured me out. I am a genius! Actually, really just a critical thinker with discernment.
And I have a win to share. I just persuaded a local business that their unenforced, but still documented, guideline that the unvaccinated wear a mask was unkind and unwelcoming and that I wouldn't patronize their business until this guideline was removed and they actually removed it. So happy for a win on the local level.
The brainwashing begins the minute a child sets foot in public school. That's why government provides them paid for by other people. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on Humanity. The ultimate child abuse. The ultimate parental abandonment of children. Although no one sees it that way it's a fact.
I see it exactly that way. 80% got the death jab. Res Ipso Locquiter. The thing speaks for itself. The vast bulk of the population are (barely) feeble minded functional idiots incapable of critical thinking and unwilling or unable to have a single independent thought. (Hat tip Political Moonshine). That might be brutal. But it’s true. Return to the 80%. Then prove me wrong.
The product of 50 years of gubmint schools, run by Marxists, trained at useless radical institutions of “higher learning” run by some of the biggest criminals to ever live.
Agree he needs to side with the first amendment. Threading the needle between the first amendment and the ever-changing more censorious European Union rules is not a good idea, and a slippery slope. 
...and no idea what threats he's hearing behind the scenes. I assume he's buried under a blizzard of regulatory agency threats and cease and desist letters from lawyers and ominous letters from politicians. He's navigating an extraordinary legal and regulatory environment, in jurisdictions around the world. So a conclusion like, "It simply offended Musk" doesn't seem to take into account the full context of what he has to deal with as he makes decisions.
With a 40% increase in death in the 18-64 age group, SOMETHING is equivalent to people being fed into ovens. The result is the same. A massive amount of people are dying. Humans are dying off. There is no bigger story right now. But few are covering it.
Mark Crispin Miller is trying. A few others like GrandeInganno in Italy is trying. We see it in the news but the sheeple don't. All these people dropping on football fields, on TV reporting (this week about a dozen) but people don't want to see.
There is a study out that shows the body's own T-Cells attack the MRNA spike that's in the cardiac tissue and the T-Cells disrupt the natural electric rhythm of the heart. Perhaps that's why there are no symptoms leading up to the sudden death. And obviously the spike doesn't stay in the arm... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5
40%? Really? You have a source?
Society of actuaries. 2021 Life Insurance Survey. Senator Ron Johnson just hosted another forum in Washington. The stats were devastating and shocking.
Sorry. When I said source, I meant 'Link'. Whatcha' got?
Sen. Ron Johnson hearing yesterday:
https://rumble.com/v1ze4d0-covid-19-vaccines-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-possible-causes-of-injuri.html
Thanks so much. I'll check it out asap.
Hello Mr Alex, I really hope Elon reads your Substack. You sure could give him excellent guidance! I’m in awe of your work and never regretted joining. I rarely comment because I could never say it better than this articulate group does!
Yesterday Senator Ron Johnson held a COVID summit in Washington. Ed Dowd testified and his stats were devastating. I grabbed a screen shot of his slide with the 40% increase. But this is not the first time I have seen this number referenced. I don’t have a supporting link to that particular slide. I don’t think I can put an image in these comments, but i will provide a couple links that mention the 40%. The actuaries at the insurance companies know their numbers. That is the basis of their business.
Below is an excerpt from an article. Here is the link to the article.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ron-johnson-senate-hearing-covid-pandemic-mismanagement/?
utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=56864116-9870-4bce-a226-1d08f18250fd
Excerpt.....
Ed Dowd, a securities analyst, reported data from Group Life insurance policies that cover healthy, employed people ages 18 to 64. The death rate in this group jumped 40% in the third quarter of 2021, coincident with federal vaccine mandates for large employers who buy these Group Life policies.
Here is another link to an article.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent
Forward to the slides on death rates. That figure is on here within the first 30 minutes,
https://rumble.com/v1ze4d0-covid-19-vaccines-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-possible-causes-of-injuri.html
ovens would have a 100% death rate
That’s true, but I think less people would be apt to fall for it.
It amazes me how many people think the 1st Amendment is dangerous. The US is the only country that allows free speech. We have to fight to keep it.
Free speech *is* dangerous to authority. That is why they restrict it - so peasants don't wake up to the scam of being taken advantage of in most aspects of life.
While I'm a free speech absolutist ("hate speech is free speech"), I can also see that Musk has to deal with certain commercial realities. Twitter isn't going to fund itself, and the advertisers were wrongly scared off. As Alex notes, it's only week 4, and there's a lot to come. So far, I think Musk's leadership is an enormous improvement, and I'm willing to (so far) give him the benefit of the doubt. What other major business leader has taken such a principled stand and has been so open and transparent about what he's doing?
People have likely forgotten, but the early days of Tesla were incredibly tumultuous, with tons of employee churn in the executive ranks. You can interview folks extensively, but you really don't know what you're getting until they've worked for you for a while. I think we'll likely see something similar at Twitter: a lot of employee churn, and a lot of trial and error.
There's only so much of Elon to go around. This was amply demonstrated with the firing of Jim Baker in the wake of the release of the Hunter Biden discussions. It's clear Elon issued a high-level order, but had no idea how it was being executed on the ground.
So let's give him some time to work this out. I think he's doing an amazing job so far, and this is a very positive development for the free speech everywhere.
Here's a simple solution--charge all of the psychopaths $5 a month to insult anyone they want under a false name.
That's why it's FIRST!
Agree.
Free speech IS dangerous, that’s why it is number one in the Bill of Rights. But it is not dangerous to a free society, just those who do not want a free society.
Good point!
Just look North, where all media is controlled by the State. Justin is behaving like a third world despot. And an ignorant, narcissistic one at that.
Castreau is the worst. What he did to the truckers was despicable.
Probably should add Psychopathic and Cowardly to your description
But he doesn't misgender anyone so the left loves him.
What amazes me is how many young people don't believe in free speech. They have been taught at college and elsewhere that speech is violence, bullying or some other dangerous activity that makes them think censorship is OK. IT'S NOT OK AND NEVER IS EXCEPT IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES!!
They've been indoctrinated to think that there is such a thing as hate speech.
One Mr. Limbaugh warned about “hate crime” laws leading to this decades ago. We did not listen.
I think I starts earlier.
Free speech disappeared in the United States when the pandemic began. It's not even close to being restored.
It disappeared before the pandemic but you must have not noticed as it was restricted in certain aspects you were not paying attention to. For instance, Adam Schiff called for big tech to censor everyone who spoke out against vaccines back in Feb. 2019 and big tech did. Entire groups with hundreds of thousands were deleted from FB.
AK— funny how that happened in 2019. Almost a year prior to this world wide event breaking out. Almost as if ….
My thoughts exactly... but don’t speak of such thoughts... first amendment does not allow the expression of such controversy ;)
Agree I meant it went on steroids with the outbreak.
Agreed. It's been gone more or less since 2001
The pandemic was the most widespread ban on free speech but free speech has been chipped away by the banning and replacing of words. For example, illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, immigrant and finally migrant.
Politically correct Euphemisms the last Refuge of frauds and tyrants.
The newest one is minor attracted person instead of pedophile.
It was the most obvious but not the first. Remember Dallas Texas and the grassy knoll and the Tet offensive.
I think part of the problem here -- why so many have been persuaded to view speech itself as dangerous - is that a foundational argument in support of the First Amendment and free speech in general may appear to be crumbling. This argument says that even ideas that most would agree are hateful should be expressed so that others can identify them as hateful, vow never to adopt them and persuade others to think similarly. If people are losing their ability to think critically, their willingness to engage in debate and their inclination toward at least some empathy for others (as I think is happening in our culture today), some people will conclude it's safer just to ban hate. Too bad hate can't be controlled in that fashion.
The larger problem is that hate can't be defined, so it can never be used as a metric. The word has been weaponized by the left as a way of pushing agendas that were illogical, but by introducing hate as some form of subjective metric, would allow them to win on an emotional basis.
Free speech is for people who process things in a logical manner, but logic has never been been a strong suit of the Left.
Humanity can never agree on a definition of hate, nor should it empower flawed human(s) -- especially including governments -- to promulgate and enforce a definition. From my faith based perspective, however, I strongly suspect God has a definition. Would I advocate using that definition, even if I could state it succinctly, to silence others? No, that only results in more hate. When Jesus said "Out of the heart, the mouth speaks," I think He was asking people to reflect on what their words say about themselves and address their own spiritual condition. Not everyone may agree, but I fully support First Amendment principles as the best approach we have in the here and now.
Great response.
ROCK ON
Judge Pell in the Skokie,IL Neo-Nazi case, finding for the ACLU (and their Jewish lawyer) and the Nazis: "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an idea may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas."
I was born in 1956, so I was taught Free Speech meant allowing Nazis to march down the street of small towns, and why that was important.
If you look at the breakdown of our country over the past couple of decades it's become apparent that woke/Left policy can't survive alongside free speech, so it's fought it in every manner possible.
Elon can't possibly totally fix Twitter in 4 weeks, or probably even a year, but he is working in the correct direction. In the end, Alex and Ye will have to be back on, and users of Twitter will have to use their 'block' feature to protect their fragile selves from words.
I think that the first action that the new speaker of the House should consider is one that forces a vote of support for the First Amendment, as it's currently written. Let's get our elected officials to take a stand.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Same birth year, same philosophy.
Be careful what you wish for. We do need a new Constitutional Convention. We do not have a deal as a country any more. We do not have an agreed upon set of values and principles. Since I like the ones we put on paper 250 years ago, I don't want to roll the dice on what comes out if we try it again, but we may not have any choice if we want to move forward.
I signed a petition to hold a Constitutional Convention 5 or 6 years ago. I haven't heard anything about it since.
Actually, IIRC, a Constitutional Convention gives equal power to each state. Maybe calling one would be just what we need.
Great idea. I’ll bet McCarthy is not willing to do it
I agree with you. born in '57.
It is almost like an amazing Covid reporter for 2 years who complained about Government overreach then says he will vote for Biden and authoritarianism over Trump.
First let me say I agree with every word of this article. I think my favorite part is about disagreeing with Naomi but not stopping her from speaking.
Estimado Alex Berenson: I firmly disagree with your estimate of the value of Ivermectin in a couple of ways. But you, unlike all the people on the officialdom side of the vaxx debate, went on to debate publicly, an excellent advocate for Ivermectin, Pierre Kory. I will leave it up to each observer who won that debate.
But the fact that you did actually have that public debate shows a kind of integrity orders of magnitude greater than any shown by the promoters of the vaxx, or those who censored all of us who had reasonable, or even absurd objections to the the vaxx itself, and the rights-destroying policies used to coerce the public.
It is time people began to look at the gestalt of this situation. The various components taken overall suggest something a lot bigger is at work. Censorship, coerced use of experimental and dangerous medications, ineffective at that, and the curious groups that were exempted from the vaxx mandates, like illegal migrants, and police in Canada but not the military.
This is more than a mere "Qui bono" as some may conclude looking at recent reveals of EU contracts and Trudeau entanglements with component companies. Governments and those who make it up, could have bought the vaxx without coercing its use and still profited.
Perhaps the main efficacy of the mRNA shots is actually its ability to protect governments from the rights of the people.
Full disclosure: I don't have a Twitter account, but I've been watching the Twitter drama.
1. "Ye" is a mentally ill asshole and should be able to display it. (Bret Weinstein made the excellent point last week that we need to be able to identify antisemitism. Hiding it or ignoring it doesn't work out well.)
2. If the EU doesn't like the USA's First Amendment, it can go pound sand...starting with the sand on Omaha Beach.
3. Taylor Lorenz is a fraud and deserves to be exposed as one. Let her post! And let her whimper, sob, and feel "unsafe."
4. Dr. Malone and all the other Fauci challengers should be reinstated. Maybe their comments would jog Fauci's memory--since he can't seem to recall very much.
BIG QUESTION: Why on EARTH did Musk keep Jim Baker? What POSSESSED him? Ditto for Yoel Roth?
BIGGER QUESTION: Did Musk think it would be EASY to "fix" Twitter?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Amen sister. And just as Trump made the mistake of trusting those lying basards Fauci, Walensky and Berk, so has Musk obviously trusted the Marxist sympathetic advisers still within Twitter's ranks.
Your name? Any relation to Gen. Yeager & "Glamorous Glennis?"
I
Agree with you.
Absolute free speech on Twitter is probably not going to work. Twitter is a company, not a government. I think it's a bit disingenuous to write this piece and not mention Matt Taibbi. Government skirting the 1st amendment to sway an election through a company is far more dangerous than Ye being booted for being a self-righteous a-hole.
How many folks know Matt Tiabbi was the main political voice at Rolling Stone for years // He’s got Mad Skills & now is a real hero of mine PERIOD
the govt does not allow free speech either right. The govt does not keep its own laws. Has not for quite some time.
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
Musk should say it, tweet it and print it on a t-shirt and sell it.
"I believe in free speech and debate; Twitter is an American company and the First Amendment is at the core of what it means to be American and the antidote to bad speech is good speech and I will not bend the knee for any country or advertiser that does not agree. If you want to ban us, ban us. If you don’t want to advertise on us, don’t advertise on us."
It is always so interesting when people like Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz decry the "open market place of ideas" (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson) , as a free twitter would be, as a "hellscape" it captures their fear that their ideas can't compete. She and her ilk only have any traction in an idea vacuum devoid of opposing viewpoints and without active censorship, they will become irrelevant. Imagine a mob with only one megaphone, then suddenly, everyone present has a megaphone. A cacophony for sure, but isn't that life anyway? All this information and data swirling around, unimpeded by government control or "moderation" by some faceless goof in Silicon Valley, Seattle or Portland who only actually works 4 hours a month. Each person has to do his own "due diligence" and determine the accuracy or veracity of what they consume.
But that is our right. At least the theory. And now that we know for sure that the Biden/Obama governments actively colluded, persuaded, or pressured big tech to censor opposing viewpoints and damaging facts, we are right to be skeptical about any "big" anything and should always follow the Rule of Gold. Follow the money, or look to see who benefits. Big Pharma??? again, follow the money. Why isn't Big Pharma manufacturing anti-biotics and common pain relievers/anti-inflammatories in the US? No money in it. May be time to dust off those old Anti-Trust laws and level the playing field. In all areas.
Taylor Lorenz, the establishment cry bully. 🐸
Poster child for the over-educated, useless person.
Exactly. What value do these people have other than where they work?
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/its-no-surprise-medias-ignoring-the
But because there’s no shortage of people lining up to write fluff PR pieces for the rich and powerful, the value of “reporting” for a narrative-pushing media outlet is basically zero. Take off the NBC News label, and what distinguishes Collins from any of the other of thousands of paid hacks spewing the company line?
Even worse, because he’s simply a narrative-pushing presstitute, whatever audience he may have built up will only continue to listen to him as long as he continues to push the narrative. Just look how fast they turned on Elon Musk and J.K. Rowling. If Collins was forced to be a “Substack Man” and get paid based on voluntary subscriptions from his readers, would he even be able to do it?
Based on the engagement at Taylor Lorenz’s Substack (which she’s still pushing in her Twitter handle!), the answer is a resounding NO. Meanwhile on the platform, established names like Taibbi and Greenwald continue to grow their support — as do anonymous cats and even dead English guys.
No democracy without free speech. Only tyranny.
It is disappointing and scary -- appreciate your analysis Alex. Elon has some good instincts, kind of like Trump did...he knows things are not right...but he doesn't have a correct and consistent ideological foundation, and he doesn't go far enough, and eventually it will be too late. Why would he take a vote to reinstate Trump or anyone else?...why weren't all accounts reinstated immediately on the takeover?...why are some accounts not to be reinstated? if not by court order and no laws are being broken. Why would he consider committees to moderate content?...it takes time and energy to have this destructive thing -no good can come of it. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
The Amnesty Ban fix wasn't done for an obvious reason: advertiser money. Twitter was being bled by a Fascist Left Dem group targeting advertisers and it was working.
What do you think Tim Cook and Elon were talking about at Apple? How nice the grounds were? Tim Cook was a representative of the globalist club who want censorship enforced. Elon had to surrender the amnesty and now it's down to a crawl.
It's a big dance and it's only begun. Musk has a goal to make Twitter independent of needing advertisers but that's a vision not in the sights yet. So, those banned are now seeing far fewer accounts being freed. I saw a joke that Roger Stone was now free but the pillow guy, Mike Lindell remains among the Damned of the Banned.
If a US court determines that Twitter has been acting on behalf of the US government in censoring speech, perhaps the court will determine that Twitter can no longer censor legal speech. Then hopefully the EU won't be a threat anymore.
Do you think there's one Obama judge or SCOTUS appointee who would sign on to that? I don't.
Did you hear the audio of Justice Sotomayor and her "facts" on the ChiCom virus? The ignorance was frightening.
Just need a majority of judges. Yes, her ignorance was stunning. But perhaps she wasn't ignorant of the facts. Perhaps she is just in favor of centralization and control by the government. Either way, scary.
You need four SCOTUS judges to agree to hear a case; five for a win. Don't think any Justice wants to see pure ignorance coming out of their mouths on the record. Sotomayor clearly believed in some frightening anti-science on the mortality around the ChiCom virus. It was stunning.
Obama's diversity pick. "The wise latina." Ha. Her stupidity combined with her ignorance in a place of that much power is very scary.
I hear you. It concerns me when I know more than Supreme Court justices, especially when their decision impacts our freedoms. And the virus is as much a US virus as a China virus.
Have you seen some of the SCOTUS justices? CR - comparatively speaking you are a Genius! And I don’t even know you.
Haha! You figured me out. I am a genius! Actually, really just a critical thinker with discernment.
And I have a win to share. I just persuaded a local business that their unenforced, but still documented, guideline that the unvaccinated wear a mask was unkind and unwelcoming and that I wouldn't patronize their business until this guideline was removed and they actually removed it. So happy for a win on the local level.
The brainwashing begins the minute a child sets foot in public school. That's why government provides them paid for by other people. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on Humanity. The ultimate child abuse. The ultimate parental abandonment of children. Although no one sees it that way it's a fact.
I see it exactly that way. 80% got the death jab. Res Ipso Locquiter. The thing speaks for itself. The vast bulk of the population are (barely) feeble minded functional idiots incapable of critical thinking and unwilling or unable to have a single independent thought. (Hat tip Political Moonshine). That might be brutal. But it’s true. Return to the 80%. Then prove me wrong.
The product of 50 years of gubmint schools, run by Marxists, trained at useless radical institutions of “higher learning” run by some of the biggest criminals to ever live.
Amen!
Agree he needs to side with the first amendment. Threading the needle between the first amendment and the ever-changing more censorious European Union rules is not a good idea, and a slippery slope. 
I have NO PATIENCE with the EU criticizing ANYTHING about the US.
The EU lost that right when it was bailed out of TWO world wars.
Elon is not going to be able to change laws in the EU, so let's move on.
We're trying to anchor the First Amendment in the US and what Elon can do on that front here.
Alex, this one of your best posts on free speech. Kudos!
We have some idea what kind of threats Musk has received openly...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-warns-musk-that-twitter-faces-ban-over-content-moderation-ft-2022-11-30/
...and no idea what threats he's hearing behind the scenes. I assume he's buried under a blizzard of regulatory agency threats and cease and desist letters from lawyers and ominous letters from politicians. He's navigating an extraordinary legal and regulatory environment, in jurisdictions around the world. So a conclusion like, "It simply offended Musk" doesn't seem to take into account the full context of what he has to deal with as he makes decisions.