On December 5, European Union regulators levied a $140 million fine on X (the social media platform formerly known as Twitter) for —  according to Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy —  “deceiving users with blue check marks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers.”

Elon Musk, who owns 79% of X, responded succinctly (and, naturally, via X itself): “Bullsh*t.”

States in general, and the EU in particular, have a lot in common with the users of social media platforms: Both want to decide how those platforms get used.

States in general, and the EU in particular, also have a lot in common with the owners of social media platforms: Both want to make money on those platforms.

Those commonalities make for an alliance of convenience between users and owners versus states. Owners make their money by pleasing users; states make their money by demanding bribes … er, “fines” … from owners, often as punishment for refusing to cooperate in state censorship of user-created content.

States, unfortunately, enjoy quite a bit of control over users because “nations” are the states’ ranches and “citizens” are the states’ livestock. We’re there for them to herd around, shear some wool off of, and generally treat as they like. But that control isn’t total, as anyone who’s ever driven 56 miles per hour in a zone marked 55, and gotten away with it, knows.

States enjoy even more control over businesses because those business generally operate physical infrastructure that can be seized if Bossy doesn’t give down milk on demand.

But … Elon Musk is considered, on and off, the richest person in the world, and he hangs with quite a few other rich people. He’s also proven himself to have a keen eye for exploiting technological innovations and advantages for profit.

So why doesn’t he start his own country, with a state fashioned after his own liking, base his social media platform there, do business exclusively there, and tell the other states to go pound sand when they demand control and/or a piece of the financial action?

Step one: Buy an island in the Caribbean or the Pacific, under terms — that is, with a large one-time bribe –liberating that island from whatever state it’s currently affiliated with?

Step two: Name the new country “X.”

Step three: Fill it with servers and employees and get it nicely wired in to the global Internet.

Step four: Utilize decentralized, technology solutions (such as VPNs) and non-state financial instruments (such as cryptocurrency) to operate, and do business, entirely outside the jurisdictions (and the surveillance and seizure capabilities) of busybody states like the EU.

It probably wouldn’t be a “libertarian” state in many ways. Musk would presumably act as a (hopefully benevolent) dictator. But the tax base would be X itself. Its employees (including whatever security force he deemed necessary to protect X from invasion by Henna Virkkunen and her ilk) would be most, maybe all, of its “citizens.”

He could even lease out facilities, etc. to his other businesses — Tesla could build its cars there, SpaceX could launch its rockets from there, etc.

Based on current revenues, re-domiciling Musk’s businesses would give “the country of X” a Gross Domestic Product roughly equivalent to that of Luxembourg. But unlike Luxembourg, X wouldn’t answer to the EU’s Brussels bureaucracy.

Those of us not actually living in X would benefit to the extent that we could ignore (or at least avoid) the social media demands of the states we’re constantly pestered by.

You may say I’m a dreamer … but something like the above is coming sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY