Elon Musk has come under a lot of scrutiny for his decisions in that past two weeks. Whereas Tucker Carlson announced he would take to posting videos on Twitter while being paid by Fox News following his removal from the air, Elon Musk’s reputation for supporting free speech, although a façade, nevertheless was rather exposed over two events. The first was the announcement of Musk hiring a woke CEO to replace him. The second was his participation in government censorship during an election.
Did your brain fall out of your head, Yglesias? The choice is have Twitter throttled in its entirety or limit access to some tweets. Which one do you want?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 13, 2023
Elon Musk’s capitulation with the Turkish government drew criticism from many Christians, most prominently Andrew Torba. Torba is uniquely qualified to give an opinion as he is something of a tech CEO himself. Being the CEO of Gab Inc. Torba has on numerous occasions rejected government requests to censor free speech. In a recent article he highlights these concerns.
This statement is wrong for two reasons. First of all, even if everyone was complying with foreign government demands for political censorship it would not make it a correct decision. Secondly, not all internet companies are doing this. I would know. Dealing with demands from foreign governments to censor political speech on an American-owned American-run social media platform is something Gab.com deals with on a week-to-week basis.
Andrew Torba begins with the moral argument before calling out the obvious lie. Torba then cites his own examples. He neglects to mention Rumble recently made headlines for denying the censorship request of the French government.
The Precedent for Global Censorship
By acceding to the Turkish government’s request to censor political content, Twitter and Elon Musk have opened the door for other nations to demand similar actions. This creates a concerning precedent that weakens the platform’s commitment to free speech. Other governments could now point to this compliance and exert pressure on Twitter to censor content that challenges their own political agendas, effectively stifling dissent and suppressing valuable discourse.
Torba points out that Elon Musk is setting a precedent not only for Twitter but other platforms of compliance with censorship requests. No doubt other countries will leverage Twitter’s weakness to demand censorship in the future. And what is to be done if the American government makes the request? Essentially, Twitter has publicly announced that it has no heart, and is free to be taken advantage of.
The Power of Resisting Censorship
Had Twitter refused to comply with the Turkish government’s censorship requests, even at the risk of being banned from the country, it would have sent a powerful message about its commitment to upholding free speech. This principled stance would have demonstrated to the world that Twitter does not bow down to the demands of foreign governments seeking political censorship. By yielding to these demands, Twitter has inadvertently compromised its integrity as a platform that champions the right to express differing opinions.The Example of Gab
In contrast to Twitter, platforms like Gab have shown that taking a firm stance against government censorship is a winning strategy for preserving free speech. Gab has consistently refused to comply with demands from governments, such as the UK and Germany, to censor political content. By prioritizing the fundamental right to free expression, Gab has garnered respect and support from individuals who value open discourse, and it has become a symbol of resistance against censorship.
Torba concludes with a more optimistic vision for tech companies, believing that Gab’s free speech commitment will endure. Indeed, as long as there is Big Tech censorship, Gab will always have an audience.
Powered by RedCircle
Support the Evangelical Dark Web
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter
Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.
2 Responses
Interestingly enough, my response to this article is about the same as the previous.
Torba’s rhetoric related to his unbiblical collective blame and demonization of the children of Jacob, for which he has not repented, is no less a tactic of critical theory, as that of Lindsay.
He’s been called to repentance for that sin, and he has refused. He is a very poor example to hold up as a Christian.
I spent the better part of the day yesterday over at Protestia, contending with that nazified “letmepicyou” troll, who posts his buffoonery all over tarnation. He seems to believe, or would like to convey, that Christianity is all about some sort of collectivist struggle against “the Jews”
After repeatedly correcting him on his wrongful interpretation of the Hebrew word Yehudah, and the Greek spelling (Iouda), which are translated to English as the word “Jew”, I left him with Romans 2:25-29, verse 28 in particular.
And Torba needs to pay attention also. By God’s standards, those who reject Him have lost the right to be called Yehudah. They’ve lost their right to be called Jew. Some children of Jacob have lost their right to claim the name that God gave them. If you honor the Lord and respect His decision on the matter, then don’t you call them “Jew” either. Call them out individually. And call them out for their sin. But do not disparage the children of Jacob, or any other ethnos.
Sin is the problem. Jesus is the solution.
Stay focused on that.
If Torba is genuinely a Christian, he’s got to unlearn that collectivist brainwashing.
I know I said that I was going to go silent, but I was convicted by Rev. 21:8. Not that I’m a faithless coward, but because those sins speak to sins of omission – failure to speak up. Even though it’s a pain, and some are beyond reach, it must be done. It would be great if others would speak up, but I guess I got left holding the short straw or something. I can’t remain silent, as much as I would like to do so.