Almost nobody can afford a competing offer.

You’re seriously sticking up for some billionaire who bought what was effectively a public square of the internet to turn it into self promoting crap?

Are you also one of those people who said it was going to be great for free speech before he started banning journalists who criticized him?

I will criticize Musk for lying about free speech on Twitter, but that is beside the point.

Twitter is a commercial product, it is a private square to use your analogy. It can be and is bought and sold on the open market. If you don't like it, come on up and put up an offer like Musk did. If you don't have the money, tough luck; nothing to get furious over. If you do have the money but lose to another buyer, touch luck; nothing to get furious over.

Lest we forget, it's not like Twitter before Musk was about free speech either. In fact, it came to light that Twitter was, as previously rumored, manipulating things behind the scenes to promote certain topics of discussion above others. Musk coming in put a stop to a significant portion of that, which some regions like Japan especially appreciate to this day.

I don’t have to buy Twitter. I can just vote with my feet and start using a few Lemmy/Mastodon instances. I’m fine with creating multiple accounts. I’m not fine with what is being done to Twitter and Reddit.

The second point is just confused. It isn't about if people would do it, it's on if Musk should be doing it. His antics include boosting misinformation like vaccine skepticism and fringe political theories, that's obviously wrong and worth criticizing.

The argument is basically if a billionaire can afford to do it then it’s ok. It’s more than confused, it’s crazy.

From the perspective of Musk doing whatever he wants with his money: It's his money, it's none of our business what he does with it. If someone has a problem, he can compete against Musk in getting the deal instead.

From the perspective of free speech and expression: He and everyone should be able to speak whatever he and they so desires.

This is the United States of America, not Russia or China. Even if you argue it's merely ostensibly, we espouse freedom around here.

It very much is our problem what he does with/on Twitter because it affects us, it's one of the largest social media platforms, it's not a new yacht he bought.

One of the valuable aspects of freedom of speech is ideas can gain traction because of their virtue and not e.g because of force. Musk has no expertise in most of what he talks about. Yet he uses reach he has purely because of his wealth to spread misinformation. The marketplace of ideas is a complete joke if ideas spread just because of money.

>Wouldn't you (and 99% of people) also spend money to amplify your opinions far and wide if you had such money?

No, I'd have much loftier goals to amplify my opinons than microblogs if I had $80b in my pocket. I could fund my own movies, games, TV series, etc. I could lobby congress to change laws on a worldwide scale. I could fund my own educational systems and shape minds the way I want to.

Using it to own a blogging platform for power's sake is absurd and also small-minded. I argue Trump did a good portion of damage to the modern discourse and he just had to be a user.

>the entire reason most people use social media is because they want to amplify their opinions far and wide.

I don't use Twitter, but my goals online are to communicate with like minded people. Not literally everyone. I don't need nor desire a soapbox, because it implies my ideals and methodologies are novel and capable of change. Not really.