How “Saving Free Speech” is propaganda for “Denying Free Speech”
This is going to be a quickey, because I have mundane life stuff to attend to — but I couldn’t let the Musk Twitter buyout go uncommented on
- In the US, right now a common propaganda technique is for people (generally politicians, celebrities, or the very rich) to claim to be doing *the exact opposite* of what they’re really trying to do (e.g. “preventing voter fraud”)
- If “Elon Musk” claims to want to be “saving free speech” by buying twitter, we must ask the question — is he actually trying to stop free speech in some way?
- Current techniques for swaying public opinion generally rely on mimicking mass agreement rather than suppressing opposition. Aka, if you wanted to create a “pro choice” social media propaganda campaign, you wouldn’t bother shutting/trying to ban pro-life people. You would just create an army of “pro choice” trolls to comment on EVERYTHING abortion related with things like “HER BODY, HER CHOICE”¹ to create the illusion of mass consensus. Because people have a tendency to “go with the crowd,” it is easier to change people’s opinions using this technique than by appealing to their sense of reason. (I did a video on how this worked w.r.t Russian Trolls for anyone interested.)
- If no one is banned on Twitter, then the people who have the ability to hire trolls or spoof twitter bots will have the ability to create undue influence in the world using “false mass consensus” technique. As evidenced from the Nazi era, you can get people to do *terrible things* including mass murder, by making them believe “everyone is doing it” or “it’s the normal thing to do.”
- Lone people with intelligent ideas have the potential to be drowned out by — effectively — armies of trolls employed by the wealthy, or by governments, to create false mass consensus
So — final questions for you. Is Elon Musk the type of person who has the resources to hire an army of trolls, if he needed to? Is he the type of person who would be able to exert undue influence in such a system?
If this is the case, do you think that it is really his motive to preserve “free speech” or to expand his own influence and power?
Just asking questions.
¹ I am personally pro choice, but I wanted to use an example of how this could be done on an issue I agree with to imply the technique was problematic, not the ideological issue underpinning it.