The Need for Elon – Clear Evidence Exists of Near Uniform Support for Democrats Inside Twitter – Opinion

Interesting how those calling targeting conservatives on Twitter a “conspiracy” were the beneficiaries of the company.

It was with heavy mirth that we saw MSNBC’s Ari Melber make declarations about the behaviors he feared Elon Musk could bring to Twitter after his purchase. It was amusing that his fear was similar to the behavior others on the right had experienced for many years on this site. Melber ignored this and intoned warnings about targeted suspensions, restricted exposure, shadow bans, or even the possibility of having public officials removed. 

Ari, do you think the New York Post could have reported on this?

With all of the hysteria pouring out of the media complex about the impending sale to Musk going through, it is rather obvious the press in general fears that their control over the platform’s narrative is threatened. The very idea of more people having more of a say is somehow being positioned as a threat to our nation, and the long-alluded-to fix in place on this platform is tipped off by the journalists only seeing a problem on The Right with a more open Twitter.

But we can see more than allusions – we have proof. The operation is biased, and there’s direct evidence to support it.

Open Secrets’ donation records show that in 2020 employees of the largest social media platforms were the most generous. Contributions to the Democratic Party in 90 percent. The measure of internal activity in these outlets occurred just before the Presidential election. This would be a strong indicator of some of their decision-making.

Open Secrets records revealed that for “all federal candidates,” both Facebook and Twitter gave over 90 percent of their political contributions to Democrats for the 2020 cycle so far. Both platforms combined totaled multi-million dollars. It was divided between individual donations and PAC funds. Joe Biden, Democratic presidential nominee, was the top-recipient of both organisations. 

This reality is important. Let’s then look at how Twitter decided to de-platform the New York Post in the Fall 2012. It was covering the Hunter Biden laptop, but only on the facts. might have derivedThe Russian disinformation campaign led to The Post having its whole Twitter account removed. The story is true, as we now all know, and de-platforming was done in a clear attempt to influence elections.

Take a look at this: The tech giant has seen its problems worsen over the years. This was the result last year. It was actually the opposite: Political financial support grew in a highly unbalanced mannerThis was a close consummate rate of 99 percent. In the first quarter 2022 This number was maintained, as the first months of this year saw that same percentile in place for Twitter’s political donations, ahead of this year’s midterm election. 

This lack of perspective diversity can lead to skewed priorities and an operational mindset that is not in line with company goals. It is not unusual for a GOP donor to be harder to locate on the payroll than someone who is a vegetarian cannibal. This would mean that everyone will have a similar level of thought. The offices will be governed by the same rules and procedures. If every person is in the same bubble they won’t challenge any of their decisions.

It is not hard to understand why Elon Musk indicated that he was a believer in the Tesla Model 3. Placement of certain Executives in the crosshairs of the law firm. A witness was seen having an emotional breakdownMusk’s appointment as their CEO resulted in a significant increase in revenues. It is clear why the infantile reactions were displayed: Twitter is structured like a private, sophomoric club. Twitter has operated like the Mean Girls table in a school cafeteria, or a treehouse with a “There are no cons” sign crookedly nailed to the trunk.

Because they work in an isolated environment, for many years they behaved like a dysfunctional partisan organization. They were unable to challenge the inane decisions made, and they applied their standard fluidly. 

We can picture office cubicles filled with high-fives and bursting out like incendiaries at a final episode of The Fourth when Twitter banned the President of the United States. The folly of banning the President, who was sued by the United States to remove citizens from their accounts for his tweets being public records, was not questioned. People were prevented from noting the paradox of inciteful accounts by the Ayatollah from Iran and the spokesperson for the Taliban still being active on Twitter.

It is entirely clear why so many within the offices of Twitter are so fearful of the arrival of a differing voice – it is because they have never heard a differing voice prior to this day.