‘The Blurred Line Between X and the Trump Administration’
Mike Masnick, writing for MSNBC:
Turns out for the “Twitter Files” crew, “creeping
authoritarianism” isn’t so creepy when it’s your team doing the
creeping.
Before, we were told that White House officials’ merely reaching
out to social media companies about election misinformation was a
democracy-ending threat. Now, the world’s richest man has openly
used his platform to boost one candidate, ridden that campaign’s
success into the White House himself, and … crickets. The
silence is deafening.
There isn’t even a suggestion that Musk should have to divest from
his ownership of X. No one expects that. There is no discussion of
how Musk set up an entire account on his own platform for
his own “Department of Government Efficiency” and gave it a “gray”
check mark — denoting it as a verified government entity.
The silence or cheers from “Twitter Files” writers and boosters
over this merging of private and public interests — which they
deemed a threat to Western civilization, when it wasn’t even
happening — is credibility-destroying. They were simply a
convenient political cudgel, quickly abandoned as soon as an
actual government-social media alliance benefited their side.
A man named Frank Wilhoit coined an oft-cited adage in 2018 that I find profound, particularly when it comes to the absurd hypocrisies of the Trump era in American politics: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
But it’s not just laws, although laws are where the stakes are highest. It’s everything, including conventions and norms.
Whatever it is you think the Biden administration did to nudge Twitter (and other social media platforms, but let’s stick to Twitter/X) to clamp down on what the administration perceived as “misinformation”, it pales in comparison to Musk taking ownership of the platform and turning it into a clear pro-Trump platform for this election. I’m not saying that was illegal, or should be made illegal. I’m saying that the entire argument over “The Twitter Files” was that the former leadership of Twitter put their thumb on the scale to comply with the wishes of the Biden administration. I’m with Masnick — I don’t think that even happened, really. But even if you buy into “The Twitter Files” thesis, it was about a thumb on one side of the scale. And then Musk bought Twitter, renamed it X, and dropped an anvil on the other side of the scale. The “Twitter Files” argument wasn’t that the wrong side of the scale was advantaged by a bias, it was that platform owners should scrupulously avoid any vague hint of a bias at all. But now here we are with Elon Musk serving as a de facto member of Trump’s 2.0 administration and none of the same critics even see a problem.
The hypocrisy is baked into their worldview. So however we counter it, it can’t be by merely pointing out their hypocrisy, because they don’t see it and they don’t care. My biggest quibble with Masnick’s piece is in the headline (which, perhaps, he didn’t write): the line between X and the incoming Trump administration hasn’t been blurred — it’s been erased.
★
Mike Masnick, writing for MSNBC:
Turns out for the “Twitter Files” crew, “creeping
authoritarianism” isn’t so creepy when it’s your team doing the
creeping.
Before, we were told that White House officials’ merely reaching
out to social media companies about election misinformation was a
democracy-ending threat. Now, the world’s richest man has openly
used his platform to boost one candidate, ridden that campaign’s
success into the White House himself, and … crickets. The
silence is deafening.
There isn’t even a suggestion that Musk should have to divest from
his ownership of X. No one expects that. There is no discussion of
how Musk set up an entire account on his own platform for
his own “Department of Government Efficiency” and gave it a “gray”
check mark — denoting it as a verified government entity.
The silence or cheers from “Twitter Files” writers and boosters
over this merging of private and public interests — which they
deemed a threat to Western civilization, when it wasn’t even
happening — is credibility-destroying. They were simply a
convenient political cudgel, quickly abandoned as soon as an
actual government-social media alliance benefited their side.
A man named Frank Wilhoit coined an oft-cited adage in 2018 that I find profound, particularly when it comes to the absurd hypocrisies of the Trump era in American politics: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
But it’s not just laws, although laws are where the stakes are highest. It’s everything, including conventions and norms.
Whatever it is you think the Biden administration did to nudge Twitter (and other social media platforms, but let’s stick to Twitter/X) to clamp down on what the administration perceived as “misinformation”, it pales in comparison to Musk taking ownership of the platform and turning it into a clear pro-Trump platform for this election. I’m not saying that was illegal, or should be made illegal. I’m saying that the entire argument over “The Twitter Files” was that the former leadership of Twitter put their thumb on the scale to comply with the wishes of the Biden administration. I’m with Masnick — I don’t think that even happened, really. But even if you buy into “The Twitter Files” thesis, it was about a thumb on one side of the scale. And then Musk bought Twitter, renamed it X, and dropped an anvil on the other side of the scale. The “Twitter Files” argument wasn’t that the wrong side of the scale was advantaged by a bias, it was that platform owners should scrupulously avoid any vague hint of a bias at all. But now here we are with Elon Musk serving as a de facto member of Trump’s 2.0 administration and none of the same critics even see a problem.
The hypocrisy is baked into their worldview. So however we counter it, it can’t be by merely pointing out their hypocrisy, because they don’t see it and they don’t care. My biggest quibble with Masnick’s piece is in the headline (which, perhaps, he didn’t write): the line between X and the incoming Trump administration hasn’t been blurred — it’s been erased.