"Not Economically Viable"
Having purged Twitter of most of the engineers and programmers needed to make the site run at all, let alone smoothly, Elon Musk is desperate to make back the money he borrowed to buy the platform.
In the 1993 film Falling Down, Michael Douglas’ character, William Foster, comes to realize that, like all too many Americans, especially those of fewer financial means, he is considered by society to be “not economically viable.”
Since taking over Twitter late last year, subhuman psychopath Elon Muskrat has been flailing about trying to figure out ways to make back the $44 billion he borrowed to pay for the platform—from doing things on the cheap by firing most of its staff to instituting bot-attracting pay-to-post schemes to letting on literal Nazis to rebranding the site with an unintentionally pornographic-sounding name in an effort to resurrect a failed ponzi scheme from twenty years ago. All of those decisions have had hilariously predictable results, failing to generate the revenue he needs in order to begin paying back his investors.
The latest desperate attempt by Elon Muskrat to turn a profit with X, the Porno App is the reinstatement of a defunct Twitter policy designed initially to keep the site’s resource use manageable.
The original Twitter policy, which granted the platform the authority to ban users based on their perceived “commercial viability,” had sparked concerns about potential censorship and bias aligned with corporate interests. Critics argued that this clause could be leveraged to stifle diverse opinions and suppress content that did not align with the platform’s economic agenda.
Despite the change in ownership and the rebranding effort, it is notable that the new policy for X retains a strikingly similar clause. The published policy states, “We have broad enforcement rights: X reserves the right to take enforcement actions against you if you do violate these terms, such as, for example, removing your Content, limiting visibility, discontinuing your access to X, or taking legal action. We may also suspend or terminate your account for other reasons, such as prolonged inactivity, risk of legal exposure, or commercial inviability.”
Michael Douglas, quite frankly, didn’t realize how quotable his line in Falling Down would become. How much do you want to bet that this insane policy, too, will fail spectacularly? Given Muskrat’s track record, I’d say it’s easy money (which the boy probably no longer has). How will the latest effort to keep Twitter/X afloat go?
The decision to maintain the “commercial inviability” wording will likely ignite a fresh wave of concerns among users and advocacy groups alike. While proponents argue that such clauses are essential for maintaining the platform’s financial stability and preventing misuse, skeptics worry that they could still be exploited to stifle dissenting voices and suppress content that challenges prevailing narratives.
Elon Musk’s ownership of X brought about a period of speculation regarding the platform’s direction under his leadership. The decision to retain the “commercial inviability” clause adds a layer of complexity to this discussion, as it appears to maintain a continuity with the controversial policy of its predecessor.
As the implementation date of the new policy approaches, conversations surrounding freedom of expression, corporate influence, and digital censorship are likely to gain momentum. The extent to which X’s enforcement of the “commercial inviability” clause will mirror its predecessor remains to be seen, but it is evident that the platform’s approach to content moderation will continue to be a topic of scrutiny.
In an era where social media platforms play a significant role in shaping public discourse, the policies enacted by these platforms carry substantial implications for societal dialogue and democratic engagement. The debate surrounding X’s “commercial inviability” clause underscores the intricate balance between maintaining a viable online ecosystem and upholding the principles of free expression and diverse discourse.
Needless to say, it’s not looking good for people who consider themselves free speech advocates. Many who uncritically bought into Muskrat’s proclamation to supporting free speech refused to even entertain the reality that his supposed free speech advocacy is limited solely to the extreme right. Liberal points of view are not tolerated and will be purged as “Commercially Inviable.” That was Muskrat’s intention all along.
In 2016 and 2020, Twitter served as a platform for political activism, swinging two consecutive U.S. dictatorial elections to the ultimate victor as the deeply unpopular incumbent failed to galvanize voters. Going into 2024, it’s clear that Muskrat wants the most extreme fascists in the White House. The only question is, which one? All the major party candidates line up to suck him off, so either way, he comes out the winner. The left, as always, loses.
That’s what it is to be anything in society other than a super-wealthy corporate leech. We are “Not Economically Viable”.