Tag Archives: Musk

Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack

A while back I decided to create a Substack account as another outlet for writing and sharing my thoughts about the political situation, among other things. I had already decided to stop active participation in Twitter/X given the undermining of the original concept by its new owner, Elon Musk. I thought I would over time transition away from this blog to using Substack as my primary outlet. Substack hosts a number of people I follow closely, like Prof. Timothy Snyder, and I wanted to write in that same environment.

So, I signed up. I used my Gmail account with the shiningseausa as a pen name because that is the pseudonym I have used on most social media accounts. My thought was that using a single pen name would make it easier for readers to understand who was writing and, if they desired, to choose which social media in which to follow me.

My first Substack post, on September 23, 2024, was a message, a plea into the ether, that Jill Stein should do everyone a favor, including herself, by withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race in which she stood a zero chance of success. It was titled simply, “A Proposal for Jill Stein.”

The second post was Only the Best People, on November 17, 2024, about some of the people Donald Trump was proposing for his cabinet and other high government positions. It contained only one link, to an opening poem, and no one clicked on it. This post was also published in this blog but no one reading it in Substack would have known that unless they subscribed to both.

Substack posted this no-reply message on November 17:

Share Only the Best People

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/only-the-best-people

That message was accompanied by other links created by Substack, that clearly encouraged me to repost on Twitter/X, Instagram, TikTok and possibly others. I did not act on that invitation.

My third Substack post was called, “The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media,” posted on December 5, 2024. It was also posted in this blog, but the only link in the post was to a Substack post by Harry Litman that I urged everyone to read.

Then, it happened. Jennifer Rubin, whose opinion pieces I followed in the Washington Post, announced her resignation in the face of Jeff Bezos’ interference in the editorial side of the paper. Shortly thereafter, Rubin announced in the BlueSky app, the formation of The Contrarian, described as “a new media outlet not owned by anybody.” I tried to subscribe and at that point, for the first time, learned this:

Your account is currently suspended. Something you posted may have violated Substack’s Spam & Phishing policy. If you believe this is a mistake, you can submit a appeal to our Trust & Safety team here: https://substack.link/account-ban-appeal.

Consider that message closely. “Something” I posted, but unidentified. “May have violated” … presumably that means “actually violated,” since the result of my posting the unidentified material resulted in suspension of my account, not an inquiry about it.

On December 3, 2024, two days before my third post, Substack sent me a reader statistics report. No mention of any issue related to spam or phishing. On December 5, immediately after my third Substack post, I received another no-reply Substack email:

Share The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream

Again, no mention of spam or phishing issues, but including the same sharing suggestions as before. The next day, another reader statistics report with no issues raised.

On December 17, 2024, Substack announced a new project:

The new media, powered by Substack

Partnering with The Free Press to better support media organizations

The Free Press, a media organization founded by the journalists Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles, and Suzy Weiss, and hosted by Substack, has relaunched its website with a fresh design….

This relaunch showcases a model that, in the years ahead, will give big-vision publishers a new option for starting a fully-fledged media business, encompassing rich design, advanced websites, deep analytics, automated marketing features, and first-class support for video, audio, and more.

Substack will always be dedicated to helping individuals and small teams publish across formats, build an audience, and make money from subscriptions, but we also want to support publishers’ ambitions as they grow on the platform. With that in mind, we are building a toolset that will allow high-volume publishers with sophisticated needs—including custom branding, website design, and support for large editorial teams—to take advantage of Substack’s best-in-class publishing system while also being plugged into a network that drives subscriptions.

On January 3, 2025, Substack sent me another reader statistics report with no indication of anything amiss.

At this point I was, and remain, thoroughly confused as to what the issue really was at Substack. The site was encouraging me to share my Substack posts using my shiningseausa pen name and simultaneously telling me I had violated some policy I was unable to divine from Substack’s policy statements while simultaneously proclaiming its dedication to free expression.

I appealed the suspension. Substack acknowledged the appeal on January 13 and responded with this:

As noted in our Content Guidelines, Substack is not intended for advertising-based accounts or conventional email marketing.

The moderation team has reviewed your account and determined that its content is in breach of these guidelines. Specifically, we have concluded that the primary purpose of the account is to advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites, distribute offers and promotions, enhance search engine optimization or similar activities. [Bolding added]

I responded on January 16:

I have examined all three of the posts I placed in Substack & do not understand how you reached the conclusion you assert unless it’s the single reference to my blog in the first post on Sept. 24, 2024, which reference was related solely to matters of policy content of the argument I was making. In the other two posts, no reference is made to the blog. The blog has no commercial component, no advertising, no product promotions except a single reference to a book I published in December. I do not therefore understand the basis for your conclusion that the primary purpose of my entire Substack account is to “advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites (all are cited only as sources or references to arguments being made), distribute offers and promotions (there are none), enhance search engine optimization or similar activities.” My second Substack post was devoted entirely to criticism of Trump’s cabinet & other nominees, and the third post related solely to disputing attacks on President Biden for pardoning his son. With all due respect, since you cite nothing specific to support the sweeping conclusion you state about the purpose of my Substack account, which is barely off the starting block, I ask that you identify precisely where the offense lies. I have read many Substack posts by many different authors, all of whom cite authorities & sources for their arguments. All seem identical substantively to what I posted. If you’re going to permanently ban me from Substack, you should at least be specific as to the offense committed. [Bolding added here]

On January 17 Substack responded with this:

As noted, Substack is vehemently anti-spam and may ban accounts that post spam when interacting with others on Substack, such as in comments, discussion threads, or email replies.

To reactivate your account, please confirm we may remove previous notes and comments engaging in these activities, and we will be happy to remove your account restrictions.

 Within minutes, I replied:

I too am vehemently anti-spam. The issue here is that I don’t understand what the spam is that Substack is concerned about in my three posts. If Substack has in mind deleting “notes and comments” from the 3 posts, it would be most helpful if you told me what those were so I can give informed consent. Right now I truly have no idea what the concern is.

Less than an hour later, Substack responded:

We’ve reviewed your account activity and noted your interactions on other newsletters. Specifically, we’ve identified two comments on separate newsletters which included links directing to your personal website. Additionally, the bio section of your Substack profile includes a link to the same site.

Our moderation team regards these actions as promotional activity geared to direct users off-site to an external webpage. As stated in our Content Guidelines, while advertising and marketing are allowed on Substack, these activities should not be the main focus of a Substack account. The primary purpose should be creating valuable, unique content for subscribers.

In this case, the frequent linking to an external site gives an impression of an account primarily intended to drive traffic elsewhere, rather than engaging with the Substack community.

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile. Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The very next afternoon Substack sent me a survey asking me to “rate the support you received.”

I replied that same day that “I am still waiting for you to identify the claimed offending statements.”

On January 24, Substack finally responded:

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile.

https://shiningseausa.com/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/

Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The same day I replied:

Remove those links from what accounts specifically? How do I access my bio with account suspended?

Four days later Substack had not responded. I wrote:

I am astonished and disappointed that Substack has chosen to resist explaining its bizarre position that my posting(s) are somehow spam. I have asked for straightforward factual information on which to base a decision to the path Substack has demanded and you simply repeat the same demand with no discernable effort to address the questions I have posed. I am finished repeating myself to be faced with apparent stonewalling by Substack’s team. You leave me no choice but to address this another way. Very unfortunate.

And so, here we are. Someone familiar with the workings of social media has suggested to me that Substack’s action is driven by a complaint someone filed. If so, that has not been disclosed. I am at a loss.

As a result of Substack’s persistent refusal to explain its concerns and demands, I am left with no choice but to terminate the account. Very disappointing.

Only the Best People

Que Theme from The Twilight Zone

And:

But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here

[4th stanza of Send in the Clowns by Stephen Sondheim]

To understand the musical reference, see Wikipedia at https://tinyurl.com/27nxhtxh

The majority of Americans who voted are about to get the full dose of what they chose. Unfortunately, the rest of us will too. You may decide for yourself who are the fools here.

Donald Trump has boasted many times that based on his deep knowledge of people, his administration would and did hire only “the best people.” Now that he has managed to bamboozle a majority of Americans into reinstalling him in the presidency, we can, once again, see this claim playing out in real time with real effects on the country. It is impossible to see his appointments as anything but political payoffs to a collection of traitors and incompetents who have no chance of successfully managing the federal government, even the reduced (emasculated?) one that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (in the new Department of Government Efficiency) imagine in their fever dreams. Hard to imagine Musk co-leading anything with anyone but time will tell.

Trump has said these two acolytes will “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” None of these people seem to have the slightest insight into the complexity of the federal government’s operations or their impact on the economy and the welfare of the American people. Rough times ahead.

Maybe that is what Trump really wants: destroy the government to prove what a giant of … something … he is. Catastrophic failure seems inevitable. In the last Trump administration, Trump’s goals, to the extent he had any well-formed thoughts about goals other than enhancing his personal wealth, were largely defeated by the Keystone Kops character of many of his appointees. It was also true that working for Trump was an ordeal beyond the tolerance of many of his appointees, so much so that Cabinet-level appointees quit or were fired in numbers that equaled the total of Reagan and George HW Bush combined and far exceeded the combined total for Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama.

We also know that many of Trump’s former Cabinet members, and his Vice President, have stated flatly that he is unfit for office. Nevertheless, the American people have spoken, rejecting an intelligent, experienced Democrat in favor of a multiply-convicted felon, rapist, corrupt, racist, dishonest remorseless serial liar, insurrectionist traitor, and violator of his oath of office. What can go wrong? Everything. And we’re still more than two months from Trump’s assuming office.

Announcements of his intended nominations for Cabinet and other critical high positions in the government are chilling beyond anything one might have imagined. If there is any good news in any of these appointments, it is that some of these people will no longer be in Congress. But that is killing with faint praise because they will be positioned to impose much more serious harm on the nation and the world.

Trump has, for example, chosen Matt Gaetz as the next Attorney General. As recently as June 18, 2024, the House Committee on Ethics has had this to say about the estimable Mr. Gaetz:

Notwithstanding the difficulty in obtaining relevant information from Representative Gaetz and others, the Committee has spoken with more than a dozen witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents in this matter.  Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review.  During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review.

Accordingly, the Committee is reviewing allegations pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) that Representative Gaetz may have:  engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct.  The Committee will take no further action at this time on the allegations that he may have shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe or improper gratuity.

Recall that in Trump v United States, the worst decision in American legal history, the Supreme Court held that the President’s “discussions” with the Justice Department seeking to suborn DOJ into supporting false claims of 2020 election impropriety were “absolutely immune” from criminal prosecution.

The Gaetz appointment appears to be causing something of a stir among some Republicans, too much even for the Wall Street Journal.

This is a bad choice for AG that would undermine confidence in the law. Mr. Trump lauded Mr. Gaetz’s law degree from William and Mary, but it might as well be a doctorate in outrage theater. He’s a performer and provocateur, and his view is that the more explosions he can cause, the more attention he can get. “It’s impossible to get canceled if you’re on every channel,” he once said. “If you aren’t making news, you aren’t governing.”

The larger objections to Mr. Gaetz concern judgment and credibility. The U.S. Attorney General has to make calls on countless difficult questions of whom to investigate and indict. Mr. Gaetz’s decisions simply wouldn’t be trusted. He’s a nominee for those who want the law used for political revenge, and it won’t end well.

Contesting for the most insane actions by an elected president in history, I have just seen that Trump has, as predicted, appointed anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy, Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. While Kennedy has had many jobs and roles during his lifetime, he has never had a management responsibility even remotely on the scale of HHS. This appointment, like many others, seems destined to produce a nightmarish disaster for the country.

Even the Wall Street Journal found RFK Jr to much to choke down:

Only months ago Mr. Trump was calling the Kennedy family scion a “liberal lunatic,” yet now he wants to hand RFK Jr. the power to “make America healthy again.” Good luck making sense of this nomination.

Mr. Trump’s desire to focus on America’s health agencies is welcome, but RFK Jr. won’t make America healthier. He’s more likely to harm public health by spreading confusion and attacking the American companies that are saving lives and feeding the world.

Trump selected Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Russian media has gleefully reported her claims that the Biden administration was intent upon prolonging the war in Ukraine, “out to destroy Russia” and that the Democratic Party was the enemy of democracy driven by an “insatiable hunger for power.” Armed with those deep thoughts, Gabbard joined the Republican Party and endorsed Trump’s candidacy. Given her positions and statements, some commenters have labeled her a “Russian asset.” Quite possible.

Trump chose Elise Stefanik to be Ambassador to the United Nations. This is the same Elise Stefanik who supported the January 6 attack on the Capitol and stated that she would have violated the law, the Constitution, and her oath of office by refusing to certify the 2020 election result. A solid Trumpian choice to represent the country in the council of nations.

Trump anointed South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to head the Department of Homeland Security – you remember her, the person who shot her dog because she disapproved of his behavior. She will likely struggle with Trump’s related selection of Tom Homan as “border czar.” Homan served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the first Trump administration. About this appointment, Trump reportedly said that in addition to overseeing the southern and northern borders along with maritime, and aviation security, Homan “will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin.” Homan’s appointment apparently does not require Senate confirmation.

The reference to aviation security being under Homan is curious in that the Transportation Security Administration is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Trump may be signaling an intention to move it. I will leave to your imagination the implications of that for the travel security process at airports. Or maybe Trump simply doesn’t know anything about the organization of the federal government.

As the lead lunatic and merciless serial killer played by Woody Harrelson in the 1974 movie, Natural Born Killers, said when asked what he had to say to his fans, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Trump has chosen a Fox News anchor, Pete Hegseth, for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth’s qualifications are that he was a soldier once and wrote some books attacking our current military policies. He is well-educated with a bachelor’s degree in politics from Princeton University and a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Axios reports that Hegseth opposes using women in combat roles, believes the military is too “woke,” has (per CNN) urged Trump to pardon some U.S. servicemen accused of war crimes and to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A quote attributed to him says, “You’ve got top-down political generals who’ve gained rank by playing by all the wrong rules that cater to the ideologues in Washington, D.C.”

It seems likely that Hegseth, who has been with Fox since 2014, is going to disrupt the chain of command while the U.S. is involved in large support roles in at least two wars: Middle East and Ukraine. Do you feel safer? Oh, and check out the photos of his tattoos. Oh, and check out the stories about his alleged sexual assault, that Hegseth denied but paid hush money anyway to secure the obligatory non-disclosure agreement. Curiously the stories I have seen don’t mention anything about DNA testing. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung reportedly has crowed that “Trump is nominating high-caliber and extremely qualified candidates to serve in his administration.” No doubt, Trump will be pleased with Cheung’s praise.

Trump also picked for Secretary of State the man he referred to as “little Marco” during the 2016 primaries. Rubio will exit the Senate, but Florida will no doubt elect a “suitable” MAGA replacement, so no joy there.

Trump’s pick for national security adviser, Michael Waltz, another Florida Republican, is reported to be a “China hawk” and likely opposed to giving more aid to Ukraine. If so, the seeds of internal conflict among Trump’s Cabinet on the Ukraine may be sown. Republican leaders generally seem disinclined to support Ukraine, and NATO itself, against Russia’s expansionist agenda, so Trump may well be on the verge of giving “aid and comfort” to one of our country’s principal adversaries. Treason, anyone?

Perhaps driven by his problematic experience with the gaggle of lawyers trying to help his campaign undermine the electoral process in 2020 and thereafter (also 2016, don’t forget), Trump has chosen William McGinley as White House counsel. Without a hint of awareness of the irony of it, Trump touted McGinley as someone who would resist the “weaponization of law enforcement.” Reportedly, McGinley’s MAGA credentials are solid: he was White House Cabinet secretary, Republican National Committee outside counsel for election integrity and general counsel for the GOP Senate campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Trump also chose right-wing Christian religious fanatic former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Likely this means the slaughter in Gaza will continue. One report I saw indicates Muslims in Pennsylvania and Michigan who supported Trump are now upset with his pro-Israel nominations. This is what you get for single-issue protest votes.

In a related development, Trump appointed Steven Witkoff, a New York real estate baron, his special envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff, co-chair of Trump’s inaugural committee and a regular Trump golf partner, has reportedly been central to Trump’s connection with the Jewish business community.

Perhaps the least surprising and least interesting appointment so far is that of White House Chief of Staff that went to Trump campaign co-chair Susie Wiles, a Florida political operative. Lots of political folks from Florida in Trump’s crew.

Semi-finally, based on reports I’ve seen so far, the new CIA Director will be John Ratcliffe who was Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence. Ratcliffe previously was a Republican House member from, where else, Texas.

I will close this post for today with further observations about the Gaetz appointment. While Hegseth’s appointment as Secretary of Defense is shocking even for someone like Trump, it is put to shame by the elevation of Gaetz to the top federal law enforcement post.

USAToday noted that “Trump chose Gaetz to end ‘weaponization’ of Justice Department.” Again, awareness of irony is in short supply among these MAGA Republicans. USAToday notes

Trump and Gaetz both became fierce critics of the Justice Department after being investigated.”

Yes, that is to be expected, I suppose, but the idea that Gaetz is going to “end the weaponization of DOJ,” the agency Trump tried so hard to weaponize, is absurd. Trump only desisted because of threats by multiple DOJ leaders to resign if he put Jeffrey Clark in charge. Then the Supreme Court came along and found that Trump didn’t need to worry about weaponization of DOJ or any other federal agency because he was “absolutely immune” from prosecution for doing that very thing.

In replay of the replay of the replay, two female senators, Murkowski and Collins, engaged in brief public “shock” at the Gaetz nominations. Five will get you ten they will vote for confirmation.

Finally, here are some reactions among former government officials with knowledge:

“I cannot imagine a worse pick for Attorney General than Matt Gaetz.” [Edward Whelan, a deputy assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration]

“On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d call it a disaster.” [Harry Litman, a top Justice Department official during the Clinton administration]

“Our next Attorney General will be tasked with the safekeeping of the rule of law and our democracy, and Matt Gaetz is not fit for that job.” [Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee]

“He’s just trolling America at this point.” [Alyssa Farah Griffin, White House and Pentagon spokesperson in the first Trump administration]

“it must be the worst nomination for a Cabinet position in American history. Gaetz is not only totally incompetent for this job, he doesn’t have the character.” [John Bolton, Trump’s first term national security adviser]

Meanwhile, Jack Smith is closing his criminal prosecutions of Trump who will walk away unscathed for his traitorous behavior in office.

To end, finally, I turn to one of the smartest humans to share his brilliance with us in modern times: Edward O. Wilson (two Pulitzer Prizes), requoted from Your Brain on Art by Susan Magsamen & Ivy Ross:

Along with ants, bees, wasps, and termites, we humans are one of the only nineteen species on the entire planet that are eusocial. In other words, we work together to ensure our collective future. Group selection over individual survival developed with the core huma traits we have honed to this day including sympathy, empathy, and teamwork.

Altruism was essential to build and support community as a portion of the group members made sacrifices for the good of the group as a whole.

The authors added:

While it might not always seem the case, humans throughout history have more often chosen community and altruism over isolation and selfishness because irresolvable rivalry, from an evolutionary perspective, is deadly.

 

Is Twitter the Next Republican Echo Chamber?

Social media are awash in problematic and near hysterical responses to the announcement that Elon Musk is cleared to buy Twitter. Having paid little attention to Musk, I have nothing useful to say about the acquisition as such.

I am, however, interested in the assertion that Musk is a “free speech absolutist” and that he will, therefore, apply that principle to his management of Twitter with dire consequences. Many observers believe this means Trump’s Twitter account will be restored, with predictable results. Trump himself reportedly says he won’t rejoin Twitter but anyone who has been mentally functioning for the past five years knows Trump’s word is meaningless. Meanwhile, people like Trump’s children have remained on Twitter all along, promoting their schemes, lying and all the rest. Is the furor just about Trump?

In any case what does “free speech absolutist” mean? Yesterday, Musk tweeted this:

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

Putting aside the logical issues with those sentences, if Musk really means that free speech must “match the law,” there would be little to worry about. Summarized, the law is that speech that is, for example, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy or that is demonstrably false and harmful may be regulated, not only by private entities but by the government itself. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded and darkened theater. Such “speech” is dangerous, and the speaker may be held to account for it. Similarly, solicitation of a crime combined with actual steps toward executing the crime may be prosecuted. Speech that is normally covered by, for example, attorney-client privilege that prevents compulsory disclosure loses its privileged status if, for example, the attorney-client communication is part of a criminal enterprise.

If, on the other hand, Musk means that going forward Twitter will not discipline participants and will depend entirely on the government to do so, we will have an example of the most cynical form of disinformation in history. Why? Because Musk knows that the government is not going to undertake direct regulation of social media platforms like Twitter and claiming to depend on “the law” to do so is the height of cynical misdirection.

Mr. Musk may, on the other hand, actually believe that speech is absolute in its “freedom,” so that, for example, Donald Trump should be free to claim in Future Twitter that the 2020 election was stolen and that no consequences should attach to such false claims. Maybe.

I don’t know for sure what Musk actually thinks. Twitter participants appear to be dropping out in large numbers over fear that Musk will turn Twitter into a platform for free-form lying by right-wing lunatics. Others argue that they will “stay and fight.” Many right-wing conspiracists are rejoicing at what they believe will be the New Twitter where anything goes, including blatantly false statements about important matters like elections. Such statements are already appearing in a multitude of tweets.

Staying and fighting may not be a viable strategy if indeed Twitter is going to adopt the policy that anything goes. If it does, it will almost certainly and very quickly attract the Flat Earth and other crazies who have nothing useful to say and are not open to reason. In that case, Twitter may well die, and Musk will lose a lot of money.

I say that because I am confident that a social media platform of Twitter’s scope will not long endure as a home for lunatic fringe participants. There are, of course, plenty of them already participating. Usually, the best approach is to just block them.

Maybe Twitter really is worth $44 billion but the investment could easily be squandered by turning the platform into what Trump’s Truth Social was supposed to be but never achieved. The good news is that it won’t take too long to see which way the mendacity is blowing.

Twitter as a free-to-lie/cheat/steal platform, Twitter as the new home for Fox News and the like, can be replaced by a platform that respects truth, rejects disinformation and honors the true meaning of the idea of “free speech.” Call me naïve, if you like, but $44 billion for a platform that promotes false information is probably a bad investment. We’ll see.