How much do political elites hate freedom of speech? Enough to take all the steps to prevent the self-proclaimed “absolutist of freedom of speech” Elon Musk from taking over Twitter. Now the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is entering into a “review” of Musk’s Twitter purchase, examining whether or not it violates antitrust laws.
Yes, you read that right. Fox News reported Thursday that the FTC is “setting a deadline for a possible antitrust review”. According to the FTC itself, “for more than 100 years, antitrust laws have had the same basic goal: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, ensuring that there are strong incentives for companies to work efficiently, keep prices low, and maintain quality.” By that standard, the FTC should be thrilled with Musk’s ability to take over Twitter, as his commitment to free speech is a sharp departure from the monochromatic leftism of Google, Facebook and Twitter as we have known it so far. Musk no endanger competition; he presents competition.
If the FTC is genuinely concerned about protecting the “consumer competition process,” it should investigate other social media giants for their determined implementation of policies that restrict the speech of those who disagree with the leftist agenda. It’s a real monopoly here, and Elon Musk broke it.
If Musk owned a number of other social media outlets, the FTC could have cause for concern. But Tesla produces electric cars. SpaceX is engaged in space exploration. Neuralink is a neuroscience company. Boring Company is committed to developing high-speed travel methods. Musk’s purchase of Twitter will bring the number of companies on social media he owns to one.
So why is the FTC even considering an antitrust revision of Twitter? The answer is obvious: the FTC is part of today’s political establishment dominated by leftists who do not believe in freedom of speech and are trying to destroy it in the name of suppressing “hate speech” and disinformation. The FTC today is full of people who believe that the Old Joe Biden Disinformation Management Committee is a great idea and that their friends, colleagues and allies should have the power to silence anyone who says things they believe are fake, hateful or harmful to anyone. way.
He is also part of this establishment of the Open Markets Institute, which claims to “address threats to our democracy, individual freedoms and our national security from today’s unprecedented level of corporate concentration and monopoly power.” Yet instead of fighting the monopoly of social media giants over the restrictions of leftist speech, OMI director Barry Lynn is going for Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Lynn said: “The Open Markets Institute believes the agreement poses a series of immediate and direct threats to American democracy and freedom of speech. Open Markets also believes the deal violates existing law and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have enough power to block it. ”
Related: Twitter employee ‘broken’ because of Elon Musk
This is a stiff bunch of hooeys, and Lynn probably knows it. The FTC could block the deal, but if it does, it will be because the establishment determines that such a blockade would be the most effective way to deal with the problem Musk poses, not because it actually has the authority to do so or because there is real justification. for not allowing the agreement to pass.
Even worse is Lynn’s claim that Musk’s purchase of Twitter “represents a series of immediate and direct threats to American democracy and freedom of speech.” This is Orwellian territory “War is peace”. Twitter is currently an extreme left-wing propaganda platform where it can ban you by saying that a man can’t be a woman (although that’s a bit relaxed after the news of Musk’s acquisition) and that there were gimmicks in the 2020 presidential election. Countless people who spoke out against leftist fantasies and delusions in various ways were banned; others remain, but are strictly forbidden in the shadows, which means they could also leave, because rarely does anyone ever see what they are saying except a few people of similar opinion.
Had Barry Lynn had a crumb of genuine concern for “democracy and freedom of speech,” he would have long ago begun to condemn Twitter. But no, he waited until the “absolutist of freedom of speech” was ready to take control of Twitter to claim that the defender of freedom of speech himself is a threat to freedom of speech. This shows how much contempt leftists have for their followers: will they believe that a defender of freedom of speech is a threat to freedom of speech? He certainly will. It will swallow everything.
And so we have freedom of speech defenders warning of freedom of speech absolutists, and the FTC is considering a move against a man who breaks the monopoly. This is the world we live in today.