Comment by concordDance
5 days ago
> In reality, the goal has always been to silence minorities who already struggle to express themselves
This particular clause seens very unlikely. One could want an increase in racism and homophobia on a platform without specifically wanting there to be less black people (for example) speaking out. That the -isms cause said people to speak up less would likely be a (pleasant?) side effect rather than the primary goal.
It is very simple:
1. Inherited rich kids like Elon often have a strong feeling that they are better then the rest of humanity.
2. But it turns out if you are a leech on society like that sooner or later people stop accepting that (remember: he pays less in taxes and gains more in government subsides than most people)
3. So in order for people not to turn against you sooner or later you need to keep them split into subsections that are in conflict with each other. The more split they are, the more wealth you can extract.
That is the age old strategy of divide and conquer and if you ever wondered why your political system seemed to be split down the middle 50:50, that is your answer: people with money profit from it being so.
Even granting that, you would want MORE LGBTQ+/minority speech. The more energy people spend arguing with each other about culture war, the more dividee they are and the less they have for trying to change inequality.
Trying to silence LGBTQ+ etc people goes directly against the goal you posit.
It's not a closed ecosystem. If LGBTQ+/minority speech is happening on a different platform or medium, it's still happening. It can be profitable to be the part of the ecosystem that doesn't cater to the minority as long as someone else does.
Not if you're trying to win the next election in the hope is going to be the last.
1 reply →