In the piece, author Barbara Ortutay describes how Musk supposedly uses his social media platform to “amplify right-wing views.” She suggests that Musk’s effort to create a level playing field somehow aligns the social media platform with a particular ideology.

“Elon Musk has increasingly used the social media platform as a microphone to amplify his political views and, lately, those of right-wing figures he’s aligned with,” Ortutay writes, also noting that “X has indeed become a haven for the type of free speech Musk has come to champion.”

The author points out that the supposed political shift on X differs from Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, which have supposedly begun “shying away from politics.”

Ortutay expresses concerns that Musk’s control over X could lead to the suppression of viewpoints that oppose his own. “The concern is that as he pushes his own political agenda, X could suppress viewpoints that oppose Musk’s own, either intentionally or by nature of the platform becoming more partisan,” the author writes.

Ortutay claims that this “could turn off users who feel marginalized.”

Oddly, this author never highlighted these concerns when leftists were at the helm. I wonder why?

Then, the article dredges up a talking point that was hackneyed five minutes after leftists began using it: Misinformation.

Overseas — where most X users live — he’s feuded with top officials in Australia, Brazil, the European Union and the U.K. over the balance between free speech and the spread of harmful misinformation. And he accused a political party in his native South Africa of “openly pushing for genocide of white people.”

Musk’s approach to free speech is somehow spreading misinformation while inflaming geopolitical tensions. 

“Last week, the British government called on Elon Musk to act more responsibly after the tech billionaire used X to unleash a barrage of posts that risk inflaming violent unrest gripping the country,” she points out.

The author also takes issue with Musk’s opinion that the “British criminal justice system treats Muslims more leniently than far-right activists” and his “comparing Britain’s crackdown on social media users to the Soviet Union.”

However, regardless of whether one agrees with Musk’s political views, his critics are far worse. While some might have some points of contention when it comes to whether he is truly fostering free speech, it is clear that X is not the same platform it was before he took over. I have my own criticism of some of the changes. But it seems clear that more right-leaning voices are able to make their views known without the rampant censorship that was happening under prior management.

Moreover, as I stated previously, none of the leftists who are whining about Musk allowing more right-leaning content to flourish on X had trouble with supposed “misinformation” when the left was dominating the platform. Very few of them criticized then-Twitter when it suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Almost none took issue with the content moderation team that targeted people with right-wing views.

The author’s criticism of Musk’s conflicts with governments over censorship also reveals the true motivation behind their complaints. These folks have no problem with the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and other countries suppressing content because most of their attacks on free speech go one way: Toward those expressing conservative views.

The notion that Musk is somehow turning X into a haven for right-wingers is silly. But on one level, it is understandable. To those who are accustomed to leftists having supremacy over social media, allowing more speech from both sides might seem like propping up right-wing content. When a playing field is not level, creating more balance might seem as if it is skewed toward the side that was previously suppressed.

The truth is that folks on the left have only themselves to blame for Musk inserting himself into digital media. The left created Musk like the Joker created Batman in the 1989 film starring Michael Keaton. There would have been no need for Musk to take over X if those in charge had not actively suppressed content based on political viewpoints.

None of the people whining about Musk have said a damn thing about how Facebook, Google, and other platforms have engaged in political censorship. For them, it is not about misinformation, censorship, or fairness. Musk controlling X means that one of the most prominent social media platforms is no longer dominated by the left. They are angry because the left no longer has supremacy over X. Their anger is about a perceived diminishing of power and nothing else.