I never said it was categorically impossible.

Here’s what I find fascinating about this polling: 10% of people who believe abortion should be illegal in most cases went blue... but 14% of people who believe abortion should be illegal in all cases went blue.

If Twitter is going to moderate content, someone at Twitter has to have the job of setting standards and guidelines for that moderation; it may not be their only job, but someone has to have that job. As of right now, it appears that Elon Musk has taken it upon himself.

Is it, though? Or did the Russians plant it on her so they could arrest her, thinking they’d have leverage on the US?

Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for people who value bodily autonomy, only 17 states permit such citizen-led ballot initiatives, because conservative state lawmakers don’t want popular things to pass.

That’s a conflict then! A person who claims to run a platform they control in a politically neutral way while being openly partisan is a conflict.

Sure, in theory.

When he speaks .... Twitter is speaking.

If in your analogy the person who owns the newspaper is both directing the content that goes in the opinion pages and directing the content that goes in the news section,

In both situations you have a person making decisions about editorial standards and guidelines to determine what speech a media platform will publish, and nominally/purportedly attempting to make those standards and guidelines viewpoint-neutral (whether out of a sense of journalistic integrity, marketplace of ideas…

I don’t see it as different from the owner or editor of a newspaper claiming their news reporting is neutral even though their editorial content is not. It’s another matter entirely whether Musk has the discipline, or even the desire, to even attempt to compartmentlize his political opinions from how Twitter…

Sure, it’s a fiction just like objectivity and justice are fictions; but the moment you give up any of it, you’re basically saying the only thing left is violent conflict— which is tantamount to ceding the game to the fascists, who are itching to live out their Turner Diaries fantasies.

Only if you assume Elon Musk and Twitter are inseparable aspects of a singular whole, and that Twitter, Inc. is just a pseudonym that Musk uses sometimes. But the article doesn't make that claim.

In principle, there is no conflict with a person saying they’re personally in favor of a particular political party, but saying the communications platform they own is going to make editorial decisions (which is how I construe content moderation,) with an eye towards political neutrality.

That's what the guy said. I don't think it's terribly smart or reasonable thinking, but then, this doesn't seem like a terribly reasonable person to begin with.

But the article doesn’t make that claim—the article doesn’t claim that Twitter an alter-ego for Elon Musk, or that he refers to things Twitter “should/will do” interchangeably with things he himself “should/will do”.

The idea of neutrality as a virtue tends to exist in systems wherein two or more factions are vying for and sharing power, but nevertheless must still work together often, and so consequently come into direct conflict with one another often. To the extent those factions are interested in resolving these conflicts…

Look, fuck Elon Musk, and fuck his little “bothsidesism” thing he’s got going here. And fuck Twitter too, while we're at it. However, regardless of whether political neutrality is good or bad, Musk saying Twitter should be politically neutral is not at variance with Musk himself/in his personal and individual capacity,…

“The assault came during a time when the comedian was still facing backlash from his 2021 Netflix special, The Closer.”

I’m sick hearing Elon Musk called a genius. He’s arguably a good business man 60-70% of the time; is probably pretty good at managing engineers like 40-50% of the time; and got REALLY lucky once (when eBay bought PayPal on ‘02.)