Internet tycoon Elon Musk’s recent distress has sparked an unanticipated response from the Attorneys General of Texas and Missouri. Following a sequence of controversial events on Twitter involving Musk, these elected law enforcement officials in the U.S. have sprung into action, fervently rushing to the defense of social media titan Twitter.
Musk’s volatile reaction came after several advertisers on Twitter began distancing themselves from the platform. This followed Musk’s public endorsement of the Great Replacement Theory, suggesting that certain racial groups were plotting to outnumber “real” Americans. In response, Media Matters for America, a liberal non-profit organization, published an article exposing Twitter ads being juxtaposed next to explicit offensive content–a revelation that was the breaking point for several corporations, leading them to discontinue their advertisements with the platform. Twitter’s CEO Linda Yaccarino had previously assured potential advertisers that such an incident was highly unlikely.
Musk responded immediately, threatening to file a massive lawsuit. However, despite the fact that acknowledged the validity of the screenshots shared by Media Matters, two states, Texas and Missouri, threw their support behind him.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri reassured Musk that his team was looking into the matter. Meanwhile, Texas AG Ken Paxton initiated his own investigation, declaring it necessary to prevent the public from being deceived by radical left-wing organizations. In a turn of events, this is the same Ken Paxton that had previously launched a probe into Twitter for supposedly concealing the number of bots on the platform while Musk was trying to purchase the company.
In an ironic twist, Bailey’s office is the named plaintiff in an ongoing case against the Biden administration, arguing that Twitter and other social media platforms defy the Constitution when they remove COVID misinformation under pressure from the government.
Loading their bases with hypocrisy, Bailey claims that Twitter becomes a government actor and violates the First Amendment by removing controversial, flagged content, but has no qualms about using his office to harass a non-profit for truthful statements that hurt the sentiments of Twitter’s owner.
As this legal drama unfolds, Twitter’s future hangs in the balance, with considerable implications for free speech and the relationship between government and social media platforms.