It’s now a widely accepted reality that Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was less about running a social media platform and more about securing a megaphone for the MAGA-sphere, along with adjacent groups of phobes, religious zealots, and far-right extremists.

But why has no one seriously questioned Twitter’s leadership at the time for their blatant irresponsibility in facilitating this deal? Ah, yes—the so-called “godly laws of the free market.”

This logic is as absurd as saying: “We know a particular drug is killing people—or democracy—but we’re allowing it to flood the streets because, hey, free market!”

The sale of Twitter to Musk should never have been allowed to proceed without serious scrutiny, oversight, or regulation. It handed control of a vital part of the global information ecosystem to a tech mogul whose priorities are clearly out of step with the principles of democracy. The risks were evident from the outset: toxicity, polarization, disinformation, and the undermining of democratic institutions. This is yet another example of how democracies are left vulnerable to the whims of billionaires whose agendas often run counter to the public good.

Let’s not forget that the leadership of Twitter who approved this deal bears as much responsibility for the current democratic decay as the factors that enabled Donald Trump’s rise to power. They opened the floodgates for extremism to take root even deeper, both online and in our political systems.

The dangers of monopolies in the tech sector cannot be overstated—they’re bad for democracy, bad for the internet, and bad for the planet. Musk’s takeover of Twitter is a case study in what happens when unchecked market ideology overrides any sense of general interest, public good, or the preservation of stable democracies. This is not just a problem for the United States. The global impact is clear. From Europe to Asia, the ripple effects of this decision have empowered Trumpist ideologies and far-right movements everywhere, amplifying division and weakening democratic institutions worldwide.

The Twitter board made an historic error in judgment, one that has only hastened the decline of already fragile democracies. Yet they walk away unscathed, while the rest of us are left grappling with the consequences.

This should serve as a cautionary tale, but let’s be honest—it won’t.

Additional Arguments:

  1. Accountability for Platforms: Why is there no clear accountability framework for platforms that function as digital public squares? A platform of Twitter’s scale influences elections, public health messaging, and social movements—shouldn’t this warrant regulatory oversight akin to utilities or media conglomerates?

  2. Market Failures in Democracy: The argument that “the market knows best” has repeatedly failed when it comes to safeguarding democratic institutions. Examples like Cambridge Analytica’s role in elections and the unchecked spread of disinformation demonstrate the limits of free-market solutions to complex societal problems.

  3. Global Repercussions: Highlight specific instances, such as increased authoritarian rhetoric in Europe or Asia, where Twitter’s algorithms and policies have enabled extremist voices. This reinforces the argument that the issue is not localized but global.

  4. Ethics of Tech Leadership: Explore how the leadership ethos of Silicon Valley has fostered a culture of arrogance and short-term profit over long-term societal health. The “move fast and break things” mantra has real-world consequences when the “things” being broken are democracies.

  5. Role of Regulation: Propose actionable steps, such as antitrust measures, public-interest mandates for platforms, or regulations to limit the influence of single individuals over vital communication tools. This strengthens the call for accountability.

These points could help deepen your critique while also steering the discussion toward potential solutions.