Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted “Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that “free speech” is actually an $8/mo subscription plan”.

In response, Musk quickly shot back “Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8”.




Musk would then follow up his tweet by tweeting out a screenshot of an AOC t-shirt being sold for $58 on the congresswomen’s official site:




https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/feedback-appreciated-now-pay-8-elon-...

Best regards,

 Free speech doesn't apply to Twitter.  AOC is confusing a private company with public services that have a direct nexus to Federal controls or funds.

 You don't have freedom of speech protections on Twitter no matter how much Musk want's to pretend you do.  This is incorrectly interpreting Twitter as a company that has to follow the 1st Amendment.  

 They are both not worth listening to in my opinion in regards to the 1st Amendment but Musk definitely has the upper hand since he is free to charge whatever he wants for the service he now owns.

 As I understand it the whole $8 is pointless anyway.  If I want to impersonate somebody else and workaround the system all I have to do is pay $8.  So for $80 I can verify 10 duplicitous accounts and get $100's in return profiting those accounts.


"You can intellectualize all you want, but when government is using the social media to promote Their propaganda and crush opposing views, that is WRONG."

 Using Twitter is completely voluntary.  Do I think Twitter should have gone another route?  Yes I do.  But do I think my opinion should impact a private company I have no stake in?  I don't.  They own it, they can go buddy up with Uncle Sam all they want.

It’s as if you’re saying the company that makes the soap boxes people stand on when they talk on the corner, won’t sell it to certain people unless they meet their criteria. And that criteria is controlled by a government agency who could destroy the soap box company if it doesn’t do what it says which is to deny a soapbox to individuals in the opposite political party currency  in charge.


 This assumes Twitter will be destroyed if they don't engage in the program they built and approached the government with.  I don't think that is true.


"You’re not grasping the idea that in society today social media plays an enormous role. You can’t shrug that off. As I said before, we intrude on private companies all the time such as to prevent monopolies from forming.

You can’t say “Verizon is not my problem so if they want to join up with AT&T and every other communications company and manipulate the market according to what they see fit, that’s fine.” You would never accept that. You may think you do, you may think you would, but you wouldn’t."

 What you describe is illegal and not a free speech issue.  What Twitter is electing to do is not illegal or monopolization.  They are just a better product and that should not limit their choices because you don't like the current Administration.  Either way Twitter is not responsible for maintaining your 1st Amendment rights on their platform, so "free speech" is categorically the wrong argument to make.


"Facebook very well could have swung the balance in favor of Biden based on a request/demand/threat from the FBI. That matters because size matters which is another way of saying influence matters."

 Facebook was the single thing, by the Trump Campaign's own admission, that was responsible for his victory in 2016.  They ran AI ads non-stop that would revise in real time to adjust for the demographic it displayed in.  So yeah Facebook absolutely swung the favor of a Presidential candidate but since it was in Trump's favor it was fine.  But if it's in Biden's favor it's not superior strategy, it's stealing an election.

 Again you assume the FBI is making threats and Twitter is not doing this by choice.  If this is true then Musk won't change the format or the cooperation methods because the Government will "destroy" Twitter.

 I don't care how big a company is, if they are a private company that wants to work with the Government there is nothing illegal about that.  You don't like it, go join another social media group, start your own, complain, whatever but pulling the "free speech" card every time a company kicks you off their private property is nonsense.  Nobody has a Constitutional right to use Twitter.  Twitter therefore is not part of your free speech protections so the Government is not infringing on your rights, that don't exist, on that platform.

Facebook was the single thing, by the Trump Campaign's own admission, that was responsible for his victory in 2016.  They ran AI ads non-stop that would revise in real time to adjust for the demographic it displayed in.  So yeah Facebook absolutely swung the favor of a Presidential candidate but since it was in Trump's favor it was fine.  But if it's in Biden's favor it's not superior strategy, it's stealing an election.

This is where you’re missing the point. The FBI went to Facebook and told them the laptop story was a Russian plot to interfere with the election when they knew the laptop story was true. They did this because the people at the top of the FBI did not want Trump re-elected and the more people who knew the truth would improve Trump’s odds of winning. That’s not even in the same ballpark as running targeted ads. Do you see that?

"This is where you’re missing the point. The FBI went to Facebook and told them the laptop story was a Russian plot to interfere with the election when they knew the laptop story was true. They did this because the people at the top of the FBI did not want Trump re-elected and the more people who knew the truth would improve Trump’s odds of winning. That’s not even in the same ballpark as running targeted ads. Do you see that?"

 It's in the same ball park as comparing monopolizing company mergers with one company working with the government being equal to infringing on our 1st Amendment.

 I understand you think the FBI should not make Trump look bad by using Facebook.  What I don't understand is how what the FBI did is infringing on our 1st Amendment rights.  Primarily because those rights don't exist on Facebook.

I understand you think the FBI should not make Trump look bad by using Facebook.  

Make Trump look bad? Seriously? The FBI told a private company to delete comments made from individuals because that would have damaged their preferred candidates chances in the election. That is not using Facebook to make Trump look bad?

Are you are you suggesting that if the FBI reviewed any and all publications dispersed by private companies to determine if the content aligned with the current Director’s political goals before it was published, that would be OK because they are private companies?

I'm pretty sure one of the articles I linked said the government was given a backdoor and could erase what they wanted.

I'm not going hunting for it