In the Musk vs. Twitter trial, Americans are the winners

The Depp-Heard lawsuit is behind us, and we’re onto the next celebrity trial: Musk v. Twitter. This Page Six-style trial has everything: public confrontations, billions of dollars at stake, the future of Internet speech, and even a high-profile affair. And the story keeps getting juicer with billionaire businessman Elon Musk recently subpoenaing his friend and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey.

Twitter is suing to force Musk to go through with an acquisition he no longer wants and a marriage that Twitter itself never wanted in the first place — like an industrial shotgun wedding. And just like the Depp-Heard trial, this one is being played out in both the courts of justice and public opinion.

Regardless of legal verdict, the American people have already won. In the 6 months since the made-for-TV acquisition began, we’ve seen the platform expand free speech in response to public scrutiny. 

ELON MUSK'S REAL BEEF WITH TWITTER REVEALED

Since Musk’s announced acquisition, Twitter has changed what content it allows and removes. Twitter lifted a "lifetime ban" on reporter and author Alex Berenson and is more aggressively removing bots. It changed the way users see their timelines. And it’s reviewing long-held policies on what is and is not allowed on the platform.  

All these changes in policy, speech, and content were driven by market pressures, not the government, but that doesn’t mean politicians aren’t watching. 

If the government gets its hands on social media, one of the only remaining places outside of their control, then we are trapped.

Twitter’s adjustments earned accolades from Republicans who previously complained about its decision to allow more content – like Tenn. Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. But the same changes were denounced by Democrats, like Sens. Warren, Durbin, and Warner.

It also can’t be a coincidence that shortly after Musk’s initial Twitter takeover announcement, the Biden administration announced its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board." 

When the American people rejected this Board and its "Mary Poppins"-singing chief, the White House created a secret one led by the vice president, the secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of the Department of Justice. Who knows what this secret government group is doing to control the internet, and would it tell us if it was?

NY TIMES CLAIMS ELON MUSK ‘DAMAGED’ TWITTER, ‘ERODED TRUST’ DESPITE LONGSTANDING PROBLEMS

So, what we’re seeing is a public battle between the free market process in deciding what content is online and the government desperately trying to grasp control.

It’s a microcosm of a bigger war – the effort to control what Americans read, see, and hear. For decades, Democrats enjoyed a news industry that leaned left. Leading newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times could be relied upon to not only endorse Democratic candidates but to write headlines and stories to most benefit them. 

Then, the internet came into being, allowing a new era of news with publications emerging online of all political stripes. Social media later opened the door for conservatives to do an end-run around the legacy media. 

If we allow the government to impose on our social platforms, we give up not only the rights of private businesses but also the consumer’s right to choose what platform they use for their needs. The Musk case has reminded Republicans to bolster free enterprise—even if it makes decisions we don’t like. 

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Conservatives should also remember that social media is the best tool they have against biased legacy outlets and progressive policies, especially ahead of November’s midterm election. 

They are rightfully upset at social media companies when it comes to content allowed on their sites. But rooted in conservative values is the right for private business to decide what is best for its users. Had Musk taken over Twitter, many conservatives may have celebrated their ability to post content without threat of removal. And perhaps from the pressure of Musk, Twitter already has reviewed their content removal policies and reinstated people who previously had lifetime bans.

Further, alternative platforms like Rumble, Truth Social, and Gettr can only exist and even thrive–their numbers are skyrocketing–because the government doesn’t have its claws in the social media marketplace. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

This is the free market working and people voting with their feet.

The free market is always open for companies to change their policies based on what their users want, and users always have the option to go to other platforms better suited for their needs. 

If the government gets its hands on social media, one of the only remaining places outside of their control, then we are trapped.

The choice between following free market values of private control and allowing the government to monitor what you can see and say online is clear. The theater of the Musk-Twitter suit may be amusing, but it reminds us that we must stay vigilant against the threat of bureaucrats always watching online.

Carl Szabo is Vice President and General Counsel for NetChoice, and Professor of Internet Law at the George Mason Antonin Scalia Law School.