Musk, a self-described "free-speech absolutist," has been a longtime critic of Twitter, offering frequent public barbs about the platform's tendency to be quick to ban content at odds with certain established positions on a wide range of issues, such as COVID-19, masking and vaccine skepticism.

He has upped the pace of that criticism in the run-up to the current spate of transactions, which began shortly after he posted an online poll asking Twitter users whether they agreed with the idea that Twitter was acting properly as a free-speech platform.

As of this writing, only about 30% thought it was. Then Musk purchased 9.2% of the company's available stock, making him the largest single shareholder at more than thrice the holdings of the company's founder and more than 100 times the holdings of the company's current CEO, though outside funds (as opposed to individual shareholders) still owned considerably more than Musk.

READ MORE: find the source yourself....

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....

Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal on Thursday rejected an offer by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to buy out Twitter for $41 billion. The Prince, one of Twitter’s largest shareholders, said that Musk’s offer doesn’t come close to the social media platform’s “intrinsic value.”

“I don't believe that the proposed offer by Elon Musk  ($54.20) comes close to the intrinsic value of Twitter given its growth prospects,” the prince tweeted, referring to Musk’s offer to buy out the company at $54.20 per share, or $41 billion.

“Being one of the largest & long-term shareholders of Twitter, [the Kingdom Holding Company] and I reject this offer.”

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/553899-elon-musk-twitter-rejected/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...........

An Elon Musk-owned Twitter is a scary prospect for the establishment

Nothing is more frightening to some than a renegade billionaire who declares himself a “free speech absolutist”

By Ian Miles Cheong — a political and cultural commentator. His work has been featured on The Rebel, Penthouse, Human Events, and The Post Millennial. Follow Ian on Twitter @stillgray and on Telegram @CultureWarRoom

A disruptor and visionary, Elon Musk’s actions and personality embody the spirit of Silicon Valley’s once-vaunted mentality of disruptive techno-Darwinism. While much of the tech industry has become quite content to embrace the certainty offered by the establishment once they made their billions, Musk – now the world’s richest man – is a one-man earthquake, and Twitter has become ground zero for his latest shakeup.

Musk’s philosophy of going outside the norm and doing things his own way is a net positive for humanity, as exemplified through his work on electric vehicles, renewable energy, and space travel – and his attempt to curtail the destruction of free speech through the acquisition of Twitter is no different.

“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” Musk declared, weeks before he made his purchase of Twitter stock. And on Thursday, Musk announced that he wants to take over the company in its entirety.

“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy,” wrote Musk in his letter to the company’s board of directors. “However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.”

Musk’s advocacy for free speech even extends to his own internet platform, Starlink. After providing internet access to Ukraine, Musk famously refused to censor Russian news sources on his satellites, despite being “told” to do so by “some governments.”

Whether anyone likes it or not, Twitter has become the only viable venue for political, social, and cultural discourse – a platform where anyone with any amount of influence has a say, either directly or through a proxy. Knowing this, progressives and US Democrats rolled into the company to weaponize its algorithms to promote their own narratives while disempowering conservatives and other dissident voices.

In recent weeks, Amazon, Google, and Meta-owned social media platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and Facebook made it all but impossible to offer any divergent viewpoints on the conflict in Ukraine, prohibiting criticism and even factual rebuttals of blatant propaganda as “Russian disinformation.” And, in many cases, creators are simply being banned for the crime of being born in the wrong country.

Rather than allowing debate, these platforms have banned users for “promoting hate speech.” Indeed, unless you know to keep your mouth shut on the subject, your presence is unwelcome by the platforms who’ve all but whitewashed atrocities in the Donbass and invite the glorification of war criminals like the Azov Battalion.

To its credit, Twitter’s crackdown on free speech has been somewhat less severe in comparison to its rivals, although it has seen fit to add content warnings to the Russian media. Bans of Russian accounts like the popular “Russians With Attitude” podcast were, by and large, prompted by mass reports (and in some cases reversed) rather than through direct action by Twitter itself.

But make no mistake, Twitter is no model for free speech. While the platform may not be as harshly censorious of topics surrounding Ukraine, the platform continues to crack down on women’s rights activists who raise their voices against transgender ideology. Even satire, like jokes about transgender US Admiral Rachel Levine, are a bannable offense.

Musk’s attempt to take over Twitter can’t come at a more crucial time. With free speech under constant attack, and with the US midterm elections just months away, who controls Twitter could very well decide the outcome of America’s sociopolitical landscape for years to come.

The Tesla founder’s latest move has riled up the establishment. Axios, a publication that brands itself as a clinical and analytical source, broke its own rules by comparing Musk to a Marvel movie supervillain who is “commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief-making.”

Robert Reich, an establishment academic, informed readers of the Guardian that Musk’s “vision of the internet is dangerous nonsense,” warning that Musk’s desire for a freer Internet would make him and others less accountable for the things they say – going so far as to compare Musk to both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

“In reality, that world would be dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn’t be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good,” wrote Reich. “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

Washington Post contributor Max Boot echoed Reich, expressing his fear that Musk’s control of Twitter would have a negative impact on society and politics. He laid bare his concerns about the platform’s ability to sway public opinion.

“He seems to believe that on social media anything goes,” Boot said, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” 

Unable to support their own paper-thin, origami-like arguments, the establishment wants to silence all dissent by clamping down on the freedom to create, discuss, and share views outside the norm. The talking heads who promote authoritarianism in the name of “democracy” would rather quell any opposition through censorship than understand and accept the failures of their own policies.

And for all their concerns about an “oligarch” like Musk running the show on Twitter, the very same people raising their voices in fear of a future of free speech are content to have billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Rupert Murdoch in charge of the media, knowing full well that they will always stick to the establishment.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/553949-elon-musk-acquire-twitter/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....................

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has finally succeeded in acquiring the social media firm Twitter. The microblogging platform’s board of directors accepted Musk’s $44 billion offer to take the company private.

The billionaire pitched the takeover bid for Twitter earlier this month at $54.20 per share, shortly after he bought a 9.2% share of the company on April 4. Twitter shares at the time were trading below $40 per share.

However, Twitter’s board was originally reluctant to accept the bid and even enacted a shareholders’ rights plan known as a ‘poison pill’ to protect the company from what it deemed a hostile takeover. But earlier this week, reports emerged that Twitter executives had begun warming up to discussing the deal.

Twitter shares have jumped by over 35% since Musk announced his acquisition plans. They were trading above $52 per share in early trading on Monday.

A regular on Twitter with over 81.5 million followers, Musk is famous for his tweets, some of which, however, have landed him in legal hot water. In fact, his move to buy Twitter came shortly after US regulators announced they have authority to subpoena the Tesla CEO about his tweets and urged a federal judge not to let him tweet without supervision. This prompted Musk to tweet that he is “giving serious thought” to building his own social media platform. He made his bid for Twitter 20 days later.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/business/554481-elon-musk-buys-twitter/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............................

Elon Musk’s talk about free speech will only matter if and when Twitter stops censoring Russian media and people who question the official narrative about Ukraine.

BY 

Twitter has done an about-face and sold the company to the richest person in the world for $44 billion.

Rightists are having a merry old time making fun of the melodramatic reactions from high-profile liberals who fear Elon Musk’s purchase will lead to more free speech on the platform for people who don’t align with them politically. Many of the blue-checkmarked commentariat who live on Twitter and who can’t go five minutes without checking their notifications are making a big show of pretending they’re about to leave.

Many critics on the left are responding to the news by ringing alarm bells about a powerful oligarch controlling an influential social media platform, as though Twitter was anything besides oligarch-controlled before today and as though billionaires buying up media is some shocking new development.

Some anti-imperialists have expressed tentative hope that this new development may lead to some rollback of the jarring escalations in censorship we’ve been seeing on the platform in defense of U.S. empire narratives, due to the plutocrat’s comments on the importance of free speech.

From what I can see, though, the overwhelming majority of excitement on Twitter about Musk’s purchase is coming not from those who challenge power in any meaningful way but from those who want former U.S. President Donald Trump’s account restored and want to be able to say mean things to trans people. And I suspect that says a lot about what we’re looking at here.

This important distinction was summed up by journalist Michael Tracey, who tweeted, “The biggest test for Elon Musk will not be whether he rolls back the most obvious ‘woke’ content policies — that should be a given — but whether he continues to let Twitter be used as a vehicle for the US national security state to ‘counter’ official enemies like Russia and China.”

Speaking for myself I won’t be surprised if we do see some of the former, but I will be absolutely astonished if we see the latter.

You don’t get to be a billionaire, much less a billionaire with massively influential media ownership, unless you collaborate with existing power. Musk has certainly been collaborating with the oligarchic empire very nicely up until this point, and it’s a safe bet that his purchase would not be happening if the empire felt its narrative control machine was in any way threatened by it.

Believing Elon Musk is going to save Twitter is as naive as believing Joe Biden was going to save America. Arguing over which oligarchs should control the media is as silly and undignified as arguing over which oligarch-owned politicians should run the government.

Billionaires coming to the rescue only happens in movies and comic books. You’re as likely to be saved by Elon Musk as you are by Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark.

How many times are people going to fall for this “a billionaire is about to stick it to the man and save us all” schtick? It’s very sad that we’re at a point where speech is being throttled so severely that people are hoping an eccentric billionaire will swoop in and rescue them from oppression. Real life is like a dumber, more boring version of Gotham City, except Batman is working with the bad guys.

I’ll start paying attention to Musk’s talk about free speech if and when Twitter stops censoring Russian media and unbans people like Scott Ritter who were removed from the platform for questioning official empire narratives about what’s happening in Ukraine. 

Until then I’m going to assume he’s at most only interested in protecting speech that doesn’t threaten the powerful, like Republican partisan bullshit and hate speech against marginalized groups.

The billionaires are not coming to save us. The idea that they might is a carefully constructed propaganda narrative that we’ve been sold for generations. The leaders of the capitalist class are not going to overturn the systems of oppression and exploitation which form the very foundation of capitalism. Superhero stories are designed to prevent us from realizing that only we the people have the power to rescue ourselves.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium.  Her work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook, following her antics on Twitter, checking out her podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following her on Steemit, throwing some money into her tip jar onPatreon or Paypal, purchasing some of her sweet merchandise, buying her books Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix, Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone andWoke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/26/caitlin-jonhstone-the-billionaire-savior-of-twitter/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW

SEE ALSO: 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into 11 of the 26 organizations backing an effort to prevent fellow billionaire Elon Musk from taking over social media platform Twitter, according to data shared with Breitbart by the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO).

Among the 11 Gates-backed organizations reportedly spearheading the effort to sandbag Musk’s Twitter acquisition by pressuring advertisers to boycott the platform is the New Venture Fund, a ‘dark money’ organization that in 2020 received the largest one-year commitment the Foundation has made in over five years. The group funds the Center for Media Justice, the Media Democracy Fund, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and Accountable Tech, all of which signed the open letter backing the advertiser boycott, and has received some 102 separate cash grants from Gates’ foundation since 2008, amounting to $457 million in all, according to the Foundation’s own financial disclosures. Other signatories, like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, are subsidiaries of the New Venture Fund.

The Tides Foundation, another dark money group heavily backed by Gates Foundation cash, funds another five signatories: Free Press, Indivisible, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Media Matters, and Black Lives Matter Global Network, while the Gates-backed Community Partners funds signatory Empowering Pacific Islanders Community and Gates-backed NEO Philanthropy is linked to signatory Reproaction.

Gates and Musk have publicly feuded recently, with the Microsoft founder revealing he still held a $500 million short position against Musk’s electric car company Tesla even as Gates called on Musk to get involved in his climate philanthropy. The SpaceX founder characteristically took to Twitter to air his grievances, likening a photo of Gates to the “pregnant man” emoji and calling the images a “boner killer.”

The software tycoon turned self-styled pandemic expert has also been a major proponent of censorship during the Covid-19 epidemic, insisting that allowing vaccine skeptics to freely exchange their ideas on social media platforms should be prohibited, and Musk’s talk of rolling back some of Twitter’s more stringent censorship policies have rubbed him the wrong way.

The 26 organizations signed an open letter last month demanding advertisers boycott Twitter if Musk made any efforts to tone down the strict speech controls the platform has adopted in the past few years. “Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized,” it claimed. Advertisers who continued to work with the platform risked “association with a platform amplifying hate, extremism, health misinformation, and conspiracy theorists,” the letter stated. 

Musk subsequently tweeted a call to “investigate” who was funding the boycott demand, declaring “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Many of the groups, such as Media Matters, the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and Indivisible Northern Nevada, are openly associated with the US Democratic Party, while others are linked to liberal causes like abortion rights and LGBT advocacy, and ubiquitous pro-Democrat financial figures like currency speculator George Soros loom large behind the signatory list. 

While the Tesla CEO has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” and initially pledged to return Twitter to its halcyon days as the “free speech wing of the free speech party,” he more recently qualified those statements by reassuring government regulators that he would respect the strict speech codes muzzling outspoken social media users in Europe and the US.

Musk’s $44 billion offer to purchase Twitter was accepted by the board of directors earlier this month, but the acquisition has been delayed as the billionaire has called for Twitter to prove that “spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users.”

The platform made that claim last month in a quarterly financial report based on a review of sample accounts, but acknowledged that the calculation had not been independently verified and the real numbers could be higher. Meanwhile, a handful of high-ranking Twitter executives have been pushed out or jumped ship pending the Musk acquisition, and a hiring freeze was imposed ahead of the takeover.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/556093-gates-funded-musk-twitter-boycott/

READ FROM TOP.

GusNote: The main question is HOW CAN TAX DEDUCTIBLE FOUNDATIONS pay such kind of money, withouth appracting the attention of the IRS?

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!