The Election Result

The result of the recent poll on Twitter, instigated by Elon Musk, showed that 52% of respondents wanted Donald Trump to be reinstated on the platform. Trump was duly reinstated.

I have no idea whether the vote counting methodologies of Arizona were employed, or how much we can trust this result, but it was a deeply stupid and damaging thing to do.

The result scares the BeJeezus out of me, not because the Orange God Emperor is back, but because nearly half of the vote was for censorship and the suppression of free speech.

Like it or loathe it, Twitter is a very important platform. Whilst I understand it is a “private company” and these entities, it is alleged, can do what the hell they like, it’s a bit like having a city where there is only one large supermarket in which you can buy a wide variety of goods and all other shops are tiny corner shops. Getting banned from the big store is a big deal.

Getting banned from the big store because you went in and threw stuff around and threatened the staff. Fine. Getting banned because the store managers disagreed with your politics and the way you (legally) expressed yourself?

But, according to the EU, Twitter is a dangerous thing that requires significant governmental control (it’s a “private” company, see)

The quote comes from a Bloomberg article (which I don’t have access to), but I assume the quote is correct. We will have control.

No, let’s emphasize it a bit more, because this is important

We will have control

How’s that for a bit of public/private partnership, eh?

If you think this is a good thing from the EU, you’re probably one of the 48% who voted against Trump’s return.

People, according to Thierry Breton, will “no longer be able to say rubbish”. What he means, of course, is that people will only be able to say EU-approved rubbish. All other, non-approved, rubbish will be trashed.

It’s not enough that we celebrate the reinstatement, as I do, not because Trump is wonderful but because we believe it’s wrong to ban legal¹ speech on such an important platform. We really need to win back the ground we have lost.

Twitter may not be fully representative of the ‘general’ population, but that nearly half of its user base support the principle of censorship is deeply alarming. This open acceptance of the suppression of free speech represents an attitude we need to change, and soon.

It’s another of those weird ‘progressive’ reversals. Remember when it was a good thing to pay more attention to things like the content of someone’s character? It’s now “racist” to do that according to the progressives. Similarly, it’s so weird to me to have the defence of free speech described as a “far-right” position these days.

The Trump reinstatement poll was a stupid and dangerous thing, not because polls are stupid and dangerous, but because of the precedent it might set. Do we now have a poll for every banned user? A poll to decide what is an ‘acceptable’ view or not?

I think Holocaust denial is offensive, stupid, probably motivated by prejudice and hatred, and a position that is indefensible. Do I want to see Holocaust deniers taken off social media platforms? Absolutely not.

But what if so-called ‘gender critical’ views are deemed to be in the same category? Many already argue that they are. Such views, they say, are hateful and wrong. Moreover, they say, they lead directly to an increase in violence towards an already marginalized and oppressed group. And if that wasn’t enough, they are said to cause a rise in suicidal ideation in those who don’t conform to society’s norm.

It’s a very dangerous path we’re heading down at the moment and nearly 50% of the Twitter population seem to be oblivious to the dangers.

But, of course, the next generation are being taught and manipulated to believe that free speech is harmful and dangerous and that merely hearing about free speech on a campus, at a “free speech event”, might be so traumatic that post-event counselling is required. This is from Colorado State University

Trump and his alleged incitement of the wimpiest “insurrection” in all of human history are a bigger threat to democracy than this?

---

1. And here we have to be very careful indeed. Certain speech should be subject to legal restrictions/consequences. Directly inciting violence, slander that results in financial loss, posting paedophilic material, etc, are all examples of legal restrictions we might want to exist on free speech. But what if a government decides, for example, to make the promotion of covid ‘misinformation’ a crime? Supporting MAGA, for example, has been pretty much made a de facto crime by linking it with extremism and terrorism.