When Elon Musk bought the single largest stake in Twitter, then announced plans to acquire the whole company instead of just accepting a seat on its board, the response varied:

Hosannas from many on the “right” who feel like they don’t get a fair shake from Twitter’s moderation/ban policies.

Wails of anguish from many on the establishment “left” (not the real left — that would be us libertarians) who’ve become accustomed to an echo chamber which “protects” them from THE BAD PEOPLE and their heterodox political views.

Perhaps the craziest take on the prospect came from former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who opined in The Guardian that Musk’s “libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ Internet” is “the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth.”

You know, the dictators, strongmen, etc. who shut down social media which won’t censor for them, and sometimes even attempt to shut down Internet access entirely if the peasants revolt.

Twitter’s board got busy passing a “poison pill” policy to prevent Musk’s takeover. Meanwhile, Musk says he’s secured $46.5 billion in financing to make it happen.

My question isn’t whether Musk should be “allowed” to buy Twitter (he should, if its shareholders are willing to sell). It’s why he would want to shell out that kind of money for an old and busted platform with likely insoluble problems,  when he could build something better, and likely more successful, for a fraction of the cost.

In many ways, Twitter is an ideal platform for seeing only what you want to see. You can block users whose posts you don’t want to read. You can screen who’s allowed to follow you. If you really hate some particular point of view, you can easily build yourself a “silo” to mostly hide that point of view from yourself.

Given those facts, Twitter’s content moderation policy SHOULD be “grow up, wear a cup, and learn to use the block button instead of whining to us.”

Instead, the company has developed a policy — and worse, an entrenched culture — of user content micromanagement apparently based on the slogan “for the love of God, won’t someone PLEASE think of the Karens?”

If Musk buys Twitter, he’ll  inherit not just that policy but a workforce who’ve shown themselves willing, even eager, to enforce it. How many will quit or have to be fired to revive the platform after years of declining user numbers?

Instead of spending $46 billion on Twitter, Musk should spend $4.6 billion: $1 billion on initial infrastructure, $1 billion hiring a work force that’s on board with doing things his way, $1 billion on promotion, and a $1.6 billion bonus to me for suggesting this.

He’d probably sign up 10 million users on day one and average a million a day for the first year. Especially if SpaceX launches and Tesla events stream exclusively on Muskrat (that name suggestion should bump my bonus up to $2 billion).

And all of us (well, except for Twitter) would be better off for more competition in the social media marketplace.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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 HISTORY

A mismatch between the title and sub-title to Matt Lewis’s April 18 column at The Daily Beast — “Canceling Student Loan Debt Only Leaves a Broken System in Place,” and “Democrats are delusional if they think student loan debt forgiveness is going to save them and Biden at the ballot box” — perfectly illustrates the fallacy of mistaking bad policy for bad politics.

In the body of the column, Lewis makes a couple of reasonable policy arguments against student debt forgiveness: It benefits the rich more than the poor, and it perpetuates a “higher education bubble” in which students pay far too much for schooling given the economic benefits they can expect to get out of a degree.

Lewis veers onto the shoulder and triggers the rumble strip, though, when he tries to jump from those policy arguments to the claim that a move by President Joe Biden to forgive student debt would hurt rather than help Democrats in the November midterms.

His case, in summary: A lot of people without student debt will resent subsidizing forgiveness, and will blame it on Democrats. “[T]here are around 43 million people who stand to be ‘winners’ from this policy, [but it] likely pisses off more people than it pleases.”

I’m a soft “no” on student loan forgiveness — I favor simply making student debt eligible for discharge in bankruptcy like other debt — but on the politics, Lewis is all wet.

First of all, his number for “winners” is low.

Suppose there are 43 million student debtors who will be pleased with forgiveness.

Suppose that each of them has only one living parent, who will likely be pleased to see a child out of crushing debt.

Suppose that only 10 million of the 40 million have spouses or voting age children who don’t have student debt but will be happy that the household is benefiting.

That’s at least 96 million people — 15 million more people than voted for Joe Biden for president in 2020.

It’s an average of more than 220,000 people per US House district. By my quick count, only 14 of 2020’s 435 congressional election winners enjoyed a margin of victory greater than that 220,000. In close races, even a fraction of those “winners” can make a big difference.

Now to the other side of the ledger: The people student loan forgiveness “pisses off.”

There’s an old saying about government programs — benefits are concentrated,  costs are diffuse. Ditto gratitude for those benefits and resentment of those costs. That’s why we have, for example, corporate welfare. Corporations lobby constantly. Taxpayers care a little for about a minute.

In this case, the “winners” will be more motivated than the “losers” in terms of  their votes (and their enthusiasm TO vote).

The “winners” got a big favor. The “losers” may eventually see, and might even notice, a small tax increase.

Student loan forgiveness may not “save” the Democrats from losing the House and Senate this November, but it certainly won’t hurt them at the ballot box. And that really has nothing to do with whether forgiveness is sound policy.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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 HISTORY

On April 14, the Republican National Committee announced its withdrawal from the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has monopolized “major party” debates since 1988. The RNC, claiming bias on the CPD’s part in selecting moderators, pledged to “find newer, better debate platforms.”

While the RNC’s reasons are self-serving, this may be the most encouraging development in presidential election politics in decades. The American public hasn’t seen anything like a genuine, all-party presidential debate since 1996.

Why? Ross Perot. After the late Texan’s two well-financed independent (1992) and third party (1996) presidential outings, CPD  established a requirement excluding any candidate who doesn’t demonstrate at least 15% across  five CPD-selected polls.

Did I mention that CPD was established by the Republican and Democratic Parties, and is operated by a “bi-partisan”  — that is, Democratic and Republican — board?

CPD doesn’t sponsor debates designed to inform the American public. Instead, it puts on a quadrennial series of expensive — illegally expensive, if treated as in-kind campaign contributions — infomercials for two, and only two, presidential  candidates:  The two the “bi-partisan” organization supports.

Libertarian, Green, and other third party and independent candidates need not apply. Not even candidates who’ve made it over onerous ballot access hurdles (also created by the Big Two) and could conceivably rack up 270 electoral votes to win the election.

It’s a safe bet that if a third party or independent candidate hits the 15% mark in several polls, those won’t be the polls the CPD uses.

And it’s an even safer bet that if a third party or independent candidate hits 15% in too many polls to be ignored, CPD will raise the threshold to 20%.

Additionally, the major party candidates  quietly negotiate “memoranda of understanding” with each other to ensure the public doesn’t see third party or independent candidates on stage next to the Big Two outside of CPD events. The 2004 memorandum, for example, committed Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry to “not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate.”

None of  this election-rigging skulduggery  explains the RNC’s withdrawal from CPD, of course. Republicans, like Democrats, are fine with subjecting candidates who might cost their own candidates votes to effective media blackouts. The RNC’s move is just a tantrum over perceived “unfairness” to Republican nominees in the form of any questions more controversial than “boxers or briefs?” during the infomercials … er, “debates.”

But that tantrum creates an opportunity for US “mainstream media,” working with political organizations other than CPD, to open up the American electoral process to real competition.

Will our media and civic institutions take up the challenge of busting the CPD monopoly and putting on real presidential debates featuring all viable candidates?  If so, they’ll deserve our thanks.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) 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 HISTORY