Once again - private ownership means some small number of people (such as 1 dude) can capriciously control a platform. Supposedly he was a “free speech absolutist.”
You may say there’s “nothing wrong” with privately owning huge platforms (like Elon and Zuck), huge swaths of land (like Bill Gates) or otherwise have ludicrousoy outsize power in society accrue to one dude. But I say that trusting our public forums to privately owned platforms isn’t the best thing we can do. Our democracy is now greatly affected by that stuff. And even conservatives who love private property now understand that there may be diminishing returns from private ownership on that scale.
Jeff Bezos built a great company that helps a lot of customers. (It also exploits a lot of wage slaves.) But does that automatically mean Jeff is also the best man to allocate all those billions? Jeff complained it’s “very hard” for him to allocate his billions philanthropically, but his ex-wife seems to be doing a far more prolific job of it. After a certain point (say, 10 billion) those dollars become just a silly number game for him — something he could never conceivably spend even on penis-shaped rockets - while others could use those billions to end food insecurity, or get preventative checkups.
We don’t need government to come in and use force to solve this. As a society, we do have a libertarian alternative.
It’s called autonomous, decentralized open source networks — which are now available (I build two of them). Instead of putting your crypto in FTX or Celcius to be managed by the whims of Sam Bankman-Fried or Alex Mashinsky, why not use the blockchain and private keys and smart contracts?
Because it’s too difficult to understand and build solutions
Well, that’s why we spent years buulding the solutions to help you and your brand and your organizations to break free of Big Tech and billionaires. And what can be more libertarian than that?
Want to see more info?