If Elon Musk doesn't like it, it's a good idea
An old adage advises joining the enemy if you cannot beat them. In terms of compolIf the enemy's values are better than yours, get closer. And if your own values bother you, apply them to the enemy. Thus, the classical right has sidelined its key concepts—order, property, family, etc.—in order to appropriate the term freedomAlthough for two centuries this magic word has guided all revolutions against the old regime. First, it was appropriated by the liberals, in the name of laissez faire economic. And now they're doing it. libertarians,Trump's followers, who obviously have nothing to do with old libertarian anarchism, but with hatred of the state in the face of the market, erected as guarantor of the rights of individuals.
Interestingly, these libertarians They are outraged when public authorities try to regulate or collect taxes, but they applaud loudly when the government represses dissent, expels immigrants, or oppresses minorities. All of this is suspicious. As is the fact that the idol of these groups is a reactionary narcissist like Elon Musk, who has also appropriated the values of the enemy by buying Twitter to put it at the service of his economic and ideological interests (which are one and the same), and he has done so while waving the flag of free speech. It is a clear example of what populism is.
I was a Twitter user (currently X) for several years, and I left fed up with the far-right drift and organized harassment. But every time there's talk of banning the platform, I try to remember how public opinion worked before the internet: people who wanted to express and share an opinion had few options, such as putting up posters, doing graffiti, writing to the letters to the editor section of the newspaper, or participating in radio programs that "opened the phone lines" to hear listeners' opinions. Opinion platforms were in the hands of governments and media moguls. Dissidents of all stripes had a hard time, although they were also able to make themselves heard, as demonstrated, for example, by the strength of the clandestine anti-Franco movement in Catalonia.
For all these reasons, social media has been a democratizing force. And, therefore, I don't want to go back. But this doesn't prevent me from seeing the collateral damage of this new scenario. Social media platforms function like assemblies, and in all assemblies, what prevails is what is most popular or what is expressed in the most radical terms. Anonymity fuels outbursts and defamation. And the impunity with which the media mills operate... bots It allows harassment, manipulation, and fake newsIt's true that social media still allows everyone to express their opinion, but without proper regulation, it becomes a tool serving particular interests. When we say that social media is "boiling," it's because someone is manipulating it to create a climate of tension, controlling how and when they want. This has led many users interested in open and honest debate to abandon it due to the pressure. bots aggressive people who obey orders, redirect discussions, do bullying to ideological or commercial enemies and give wings to reactionary discourses.
Banning a social network, as the Spanish Minister of Youth has just proposed, is a proposal that is difficult to justify in a democracy and is certainly impractical. However, European governments should persist in regulating how these platforms operate, while also guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to honor and truth. Restricting access for minors and prohibiting anonymity would be a step in that direction. And the fact that Elon Musk considers it a "tyrannical" idea only strengthens my support.