President Musk.
The story of Elon Musk who already owns the largest stake in Twitter's shareholding (in theory he should be the CEO, or name one) and everyone asking him what he intends to do with it is making the rounds of newspapers. But he, flab.
In my opinion, proceeding in this way is wrong. The best way to go about this kind of thing is to abstract, look at the structure of things as we know them, and then build a narrative that fits. Because in the end it turns out that badly goes, instead of Musk you have to put someone who occupies "the same logical box".
So, let's start with what we know:
- Trump is a Republican. And a controversial character.
- Social networks have expelled him.
- This is the main obstacle to his possible new campaign.
Now, let's imagine that we are a Republican, and that we are controversial characters. And let's imagine we want to run in the next presidential elections. What is the main obstacle we see in front of us?
They are social networks, of course. It is necessary, even just to set up a decent campaign, to be sure that at a certain moment of the campaign you will not be expelled from social networks, otherwise you risk investing a lot of work and money, to see the goal vanish in front of the eyes.
Now, let's assume we're Elon Musk. You are obviously Republicans, however progressive you may seem to some, your ideas place you within the Tea Party, if not the Alt-Right, enclosure.
You want to run freely in the next elections, with a social network that does not censor you. You have the money. No company will EVER be able to censor or expel their CEO, or at least have the ability to dishearten the CEO and put another in his place.
Twitter shares are cheap. The shareholding structure is fragmented enough to allow a rise with only 9%. What are you doing?
Obviously Occam would hate this way of proceeding. But let's be clear, the reasoning has value because it applies to EVERY republican who wants to run as president: first he should gain the certainty that the "cancel culture" does not affect him. No Republican is safe.
For instance:
the idea that occupying parliament is cool is shared by one hundred percent of the Occupied Social Centers. It is their erotic dream.
I can confidently subscribe to the idea that, if you think that the elections have been falsified, occupying the parliament is both a duty and also a good thing. Then we must obviously ask ourselves what the material evidence of this falsification is, but the point is not this: anyone who thinks that the elections have been stolen, as happened in Maidan Square, can decide that it is appropriate to occupy the parliament .
In short, this opinion is completely legitimate. For example, according to the German constitution, article 20, par 4, resistance is a right.
That is, it would be legal to occupy parliament – the law does not specify anything on any buffalo horns – if one is absolutely convinced that the order has been overturned.
I say this to affirm that the idea of occupying parliament if you believe that the elections are rigged is not a matter of heresy, but it can be conceivable, it can be legal, and even guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution itself.
But if you are a Republican and want to support this opinion, you know well that you risk being banned from social networks. You must therefore, in any case, do two things:
- avoid the topic
- make sure they can't kick you off a social network
solution 1. is not practicable. Both you and your candidates will end up arguing with their opponents, and ultimately your opponents will want to get you into an argument that carries the risk of being expelled.
They will do it on purpose, therefore, to take the argument.
So you are left with option 2. And only that.
As you can see, my speculation about Elon Musk, which is gratuitous and superfluous in the case of the specific person, is valid for any Republican intending to run and capture the Trump Republican base.
We therefore have an entire class of politicians who will have to secure access to some social media. This is the result of F's past choice! and T! to ban Trump: now the Republicans must somehow subjugate them.
Does this prove that Elon Musk will run in the next election? No. But there are many nuances.
- Right now, a Republican candidate would have a LOT of interest in being friends with Musk: he owns the largest shareholding and can appoint the CEO.
- Right now, a Republican candidate might be tempted to buy this share of Musk's stock in order to run.
Whether or not Musk runs for the presidency is now essential to any Republican intending to run.
However, it is not certain that he will be a candidate: he will still be a fundamental part of the campaign. There will not be, as long as he is the largest shareholder, other "painful decisions to silence a politician", because Musk has already warned that he believes that Free Speech is needed.
And no matter how many nuclear options to dilute the shareholding, with a loss in shareholder value, Musk has the resources to remain the main shareholder. Indeed, now he may have bought the shares at an even lower price, in silence: their price would skyrocket when Musk announces that he has even more. And it's been a while since someone has been raking in Twitter shares:
So what do we want to conclude?
We can draw two certain conclusions:
- the front of the "cancel culture" of Social Networks is definitively cracked.
- whoever the next Republican candidate is, Elon Musk will be his protector.
Which is enough, to say