Freedom of Speech
I pose this question to all of my fellow young people: Going forward, do we want freedom speech or do we not? This is a rare scenario in which a question about our incredibly complex society has only two possible answers: Yes or No. If you say no, then it becomes very clear who you are, a fascist. I think it’s pretty cut and dry. If you don’t support free speech, you therefore must be in support of the government being able to determine what is and is not “acceptable speech”. I do find it odd, however, that in a world where calling someone a “fascist” or a “nazi” has become incredibly common, nobody ever comes out and says, “No, I don’t support free speech”. The most common response other than a simple “Yes” tends to be, “Yes, but not person x, y, or, z for saying x, y, and z”. The “but” is the distinction that turns support for freedom of speech, into a “No”.
This is not complicated, however, do I think that the regular citizens who say “but” are fascists? No. Although they are subscribing to fascist, anti-freedom ideology, I do not believe them to be fascists. They have been led astray by the political establishment, the true fascists of our world. I am not blaming them, because at the end of the day, most people are good and have love in their hearts. When they say “but”, I believe that to come from a place of wanting to do what is right. However, freedom of speech is THE cornerstone of democracy, and the most important tool at the disposal of a nation’s citizenry. Without it, societies fall to the hands of dictators and tyrants. This is an undeniable truth.
In order to remain free, and to fight for a better future, we must have open discourse. That means we cannot censor anyone for anything. The opposition to this point will say that people shouldn’t be able to say certain things, as they are too horrific, and will hurt the feelings of the people toward whom the proverbial mud is being thrown. However, is it not better to have people say racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted things out loud? I think that it is. That way, we can all recognize exactly who these people are. When we censor those voices, it creates the exact environment that we live in today, where the terms like “bigot”, “homophobe”, “racist”, and “transphobe” are overused to the point where they almost have no meaning. Those terms, or accusations, should hold incredible amounts of weight. By censoring those individuals, whom those terms would certainly describe, we then undermine the progress that those terms should be used to bring. The finger becomes pointed in places it should not.
The only time where any form of speech should be “censored” is when someone directly calls for violence against another individual or group of individuals. This is a literal crime. All else, should be left in the “public square” for all to see. I understand not wanting to hurt anyones feelings, and I certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. However, having your feelings hurt or your heart broken is just part of life. If you spend your entire life actively trying to not have your feelings hurt, or running from discomfort, you will never live a fulfilled, happy life. You will never develop thick skin, and you will struggle to become your own person. The only way to develop your personality, and to rise above criticism or opinions of others, is a trial by fire. When we censor, we do not allow for the development of the self or the ability to endure hardship. What we are left with is a toxic environment in which those calling for censorship are rewarded by the establishment. By not taking a stand, and allowing this to continue, what we are doing is sacrificing our freedom, for the sake of comfort. A principle that can be seen across the board, in every aspect of our society, especially since the turn of the 21st century.
As many have been warning for many years now, once the seal is broken on censorship, both in the press and on social media, the goalposts will inevitably move further and further from where they started. When people like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos were banned from major platforms, many did not imagine that things would be where they are today. For instance, even Noam Chomsky has come under fire in recent days for stating that the best way to reach peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is through diplomacy.
The way things currently stand, what is considered “acceptable speech” is being dictated by major tech corporations, financial institutions, our government, and “the Twitter mob”. All of them, speak and operate with an unimaginable level of moral superiority and condescension toward those who do not share the same opinions or ideology. This is not freedom of speech. When a journalist like Chris Hedges, has his entire YouTube catalog wiped, when others are unjustly labeled as “Russian State Media” or “Chinese State Media” on Twitter for the crime of pointing out the misdeeds of American/Western powers, and when many more have their accounts suspended or terminated for incredibly minor infractions, we do not have freedom of speech on major social media platforms.
As more and more citizens move away from “mainstream” media outlets and into the world of independent media, it should be quite obvious that the censorship of these individuals is done for the purpose of concealing truths, and keeping us divided. When people are able to form their own opinions, and seek information for themselves, the only possible outcomes are progress and unity. Progress and unity, being the scariest thing the powers that be could ever imagine.
Elon Musk’s Potential Takeover
So where does Elon Musk fit into all of this? Well, if you haven’t heard the news, earlier this month, Musk became the largest single shareholder of Twitter. He purchased a 9.2% stake (over the past several months) in the company, equating to about 73.5 million shares. Musk, the Billionaire CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX, has been very skeptical and critical of Twitter in the past, and has seemed to be on a kick of promoting Democracy and Freedom of speech. Since the acquisition, Musk was then offered a spot on Twitter’s board of directors. The offer was quickly rescinded after Musk declined. Thus, sparking the idea that Musk would seek to purchase the social media platform in a hostile takeover. For those that are unaware, a hostile takeover occurs when a company is acquired without permission from said company’s leadership, instead, the acquiring party goes directly to the shareholders.
Musk followed this by offering a sum in the range of $43 Billion, or $54.20 per share, to buy Twitter outright. If accepted, Musk planned to take Twitter off of the exchange, and redevelop the social media platform as a private company. As things stand, the Twitter board have not accepted the bid, and they have brought in the notoriously altruistic JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs to help manage the proposed takeover.
This is where things get interesting, as Goldman Sachs has Twitter rated as a sell at $30 per share. Meaning, that the financial titans over at Goldman believe that the true value of Twitter is $30 per share. So, Musk is paying almost double the actual value of the company. The board of directors at Twitter, or at any corporation really, have the fiduciary responsibility to act in accordance to what is best for their shareholders at all times. Basically, to make the stock as valuable as possible. When Musk became the largest shareholder of the company, Twitter’s stock jumped 22%. The price has since come back down a bit, but from a month ago to date, Twitter’s stock has gone from about $37 per share to about $48 per share. This is a massive bump, a bump that was fueled by Musk. However, this is where Twitter’s board finds themselves in a tricky situation. If they reject Musk’s offer, they risk him pulling out, therefore causing the stock to dive. This would also be acting antithetically to their fiduciary responsibility. If they did, all that would happen is Musk would walk away with a very large profit. It seems like a good deal for the shareholders, and for the board. However, I feel as though the sale would be against the interests of both board members, and others with large stakes, that seek to wield power over the direction of the company and the way they operate. What price could you possibly put on the keys to controlling public discourse and public opinion? Hence, Twitter’s board opting for a “Poison Pill” approach, in which they offered shareholders the opportunity to buy more shares at a discounted rate, in an attempt to dilute Musk’s stake, and he is now the second largest shareholder.
Obviously, I am not an expert in finance, and I will not pretend to be, however I believe my understanding of the most basic principles of these things to be quite good. So, my understanding of the situation is this. Elon, seems to be doing a genuinely good thing in terms of not just promoting freedom of speech, but actively doing something about it. In a recent interview he had this to say about his intentions:
“My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization. I don’t care about the economics at all.”
What he is saying is that Twitter has become the de facto “Town Square” for public discourse, and the best thing for the people is to have a place where we can freely speak. Also, that he does not care about the money involved with the deal, or how Twitter operates as a business. This seems to be a move based on what is best for humanity, and I can not help but agree. Not that I fully trust Elon to do what is right, he is a Billionaire at the end of the day, but at the very least he is taking action. By simply taking action, or implying action, he is doing more for freedom of speech than anyone in our government, or anywhere really.
Who Really Owns Twitter?
As expected, people online are totally divided. On one side, you have people like myself who believe in freedom of speech and hope that Musk has the right intentions and will actually follow through on what he has said. On the other side, there are people in the mainstream media throwing a complete and total fit, and many people on social media vowing to leave Twitter if Musk purchases the company. The reason for this pushback, is understandable, as many people just cannot seem to stomach seeing a billionaire purchasing the site, and that what I deem to be “promoting free speech” actually is a cover to censor their views and hence promote “Racism”, “Homophobia”, “Transphobia”, etc. Now, I am not one of these people that thinks Elon Musk is the second coming of christ himself. Far from it. From my understanding, Musk has some pretty serious strikes on his record. One being his disingenuous promotion of Dogecoin, racial abuse of employees at Tesla, and another being his incredibly corrupt practices over mining deals in places such as Afghanistan, Bolivia, and Congo for the Lithium that is used in batteries for Tesla. None of these things are good whatsoever. However, it does beg the question, as a society, what are our moral requirements for the ownership of Twitter?
If we look at some of the other large shareholders, the three names that stick out to me, and many others who understand the landscape of finance are:
The Vanguard Group - 10.29% Stake (82,403,665 shares)
BlackRock Fund Advisors - 4.56% Stake (36,536,143 shares)
State Street Global Advisors - 4.54% Stake (36,363,324 shares)
These are the “Big 3” of the Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). Combined, they have Assets Under Management (AUM) well north of the $20 Trillion mark. Yes, you read that right, Trillion. These three firms are completely dominant in the world of finance, and interestingly, they all own stakes in each other (cannot confirm Vanguard as it is private, and does not have to publicly disclose information. However, Blackrock and State Street are rumored to have substantial stakes in Vanguard).
Vanguard is the largest shareholder of State Street (9.32%) and Blackrock is the second (7.52%).
Vanguard is the largest shareholder in Blackrock (8.05%) and State Street is fourth (4.30%).
These three combine to hold controlling stakes in approximately 90% of the S&P 500. This meaning, they essentially own 90% of the 500 largest companies in the country/world, and they own each other. It may seem confusing, and it is, but what we are looking at with the “Big 3” is the monopoly that owns everything. They own and control the television you watch, the food you eat, the technology you use, and even the medicine that you take (Pfizer). They even own “competitors” within industries. For many, we think that, even as rigged as Wall Street is, there is still a sense of the “free market”. This is false. They own both Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Apple and Microsoft, CNN and Fox, etc., that doesn’t sound very “competitive” to me. These three firms truly do run the world, and high ranking employees at these firms have spent plenty of time in the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. They are non-partisan, they do not care about politics, only about money.
Blackrock in particular has been enjoying itself since the beginning of the pandemic. We all know just how difficult and expensive it is to buy a home, as the average sale price in the United States is around the $500,000 mark. This massive rise in price has been in spite of a global pandemic that has destroyed the bank accounts of millions. As millions struggled, Blackrock was busy buying real estate. They bought countless apartments and homes at 20-45% over asking price, all cash. Now, let us take into account the simple economic principle of supply and demand. When supply goes down (homes going off the market) the supply is decreased, and the price goes up. Many people have speculated that this housing bubble will burst. However, with the increased prices of lumber and building materials, combined with a lack of labor, the price of building new homes went up astronomically. So, with homes going off the market (limited supply), new builds decreasing, and the buying power of Americans decreasing due to inflation, this doesn’t seem like a bubble that will burst any time soon. If this bubble holds, more people will be forced to continue renting, and the last time I checked, rent was increasing almost everywhere. Many will struggle to save enough to buy a home. Blackrock, and many other firms that followed suit, have an incredibly massive role to play in this destruction of the American Dream. They have the financial means to hold these homes forever, and why wouldn’t they? They can just keep collecting and increasing rent. Not to mention, that as a massive financial institution with plenty of capital, the loans they take out to buy these properties are issued by banks at interest rates in the region of only 1%.
Blackrock truly does love real estate. Larry Fink, founder, and the man whom many describe as “The most powerful man in the world”, got his start as a pioneer of the Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) as he was the first broker at Boston First pushing this product in the late 1970s. A MBS, in essence, is a financial product comprised of a collection of mortgage loans. Throughout history, people have always paid their mortgages, making the MBS a very safe investment. That was until 2008, when the MBS became a WMD. Credit raters gave sub-prime, adjustable-rate mortgage loans AAA ratings (highest rating), when in reality, they were FFF’s. These horrific loans were packaged together and people invested heavily in MBS’s comprised of these loans. As soon as the adjustable rates increased, millions defaulted on their mortgages, boom, complete financial collapse. Guess who got bailed out? The perpetrators. Wells Fargo, State Street, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, the lot. Guess who got to absorb all of the defaulted properties? The perpetrators. Guess who paid for it? The taxpayers, we did.
Another prominent voice in this whole Twitter takeover is Saudi Arabian investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
"I don't believe that the proposed offer by Elon Musk ($54.20 per share) comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter given its growth prospects," he said in a Twitter post.
Remind me again how Saudi Arabia feels about free speech? I think all we need to know is the story of Jamal Khashoggi. The Saudi journalist who was murdered at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey back in 2018.
Here is an article on Khashoggi’s Assassination: NPR Article
Who Should Own Twitter?
So who is worse? Who should we have running the world’s “Town Square”? Elon Musk, or the very people at the root of every single problem that we are currently facing? I don’t think things would be any worse if Elon purchased Twitter, but if he is not able to make the purchase, we can be certain that this wave of censorship will continue to engulf more and more of the information that is vital to our freedom. I say, we give Musk a shot.
If Musk takes over Twitter and takes it private, I have a few suggestions that I think would be useful. One would be diverting Twitter’s business model away from advertising and toward a subscription based model. Hear me out on this one. We all have become so used to things being “free”, but of course, this isn’t actually true. Currently, Twitter makes all of its money from selling advertising space on their platform. In order to increase profitability, they have geared their AI algorithms in a manner that keeps users on the platform and engaged for as long as possible, thus insuring that you will see the maximum amount of ads, therefore bringing in more revenue. They also make money from selling the user data they collect to major corporations. Remember what I said earlier about Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street? They own all of these major corporations and their subsidiaries. Currently, Twitter is completely subservient to the “Big 3”, as they are not only major shareholders, but also a major source of revenue.
Musk has hinted at this idea. He made the suggestion of giving every verifiable human being a blue checkmark. This checkmark would cost money, but with hundreds of millions of users, if all anyone had to pay was $1 or $2 per month, this would probably be enough to cover Twitter’s operating expenses. This would also come with the added bonus of diverting Twitter away from the influence of the institutions that own the entire world, and would also verify that the accounts with checkmarks belong to actual people. This would create an element of credibility to the tweets that you read. Without the checkmark, you would have to be skeptical as to whether or not the tweet was written by a bot or a person. I also think this move would force people to operate with greater levels of respect for one another, even if you remain anonymous whilst having a checkmark. Another question I think we all would like to have answered, is just how many bot accounts exist on the platform? What is the percentage? Where are they from?
Final Thoughts
In my opinion, and many others, freedom of speech is the most important tool we have at our disposal. It is our most essential right as human beings and as citizens of the United States. Twitter truly has become the “Town Square” for people to talk and share ideas to a global audience, and with that, we must do everything in our power to protect freedom of speech across all platforms. Twitter has long passed the days when it was used to alert your friends that you were getting ice cream or going to see a movie. It is an integral part of how people take in information, and how they communicate. The current board, and the top investors have almost complete control over how information spreads, they can promote what or whomever, and they can silence what or whomever. Twitter is completely geared towards making as much money as possible through advertising and data collection, and they are subservient to their customers and clients, not the users. Those customers and clients being the “Big 3” and other major financial institutions, the very institutions that have near complete ownership over everything. In order to promote freedom of speech, Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter. I think allowing him to do so, would be our best bet. If it works, fantastic, and if it doesn’t, well, we are back to where we started.
We have nothing to lose.