Should Twitter be socialized?
Elizabeth Warren wrote: “This deal is dangerous for our democracy. Billionaires like Elon Musk play by a different set of rules than everyone else, accumulating power for their own gain.” As a liberal, she’ll advocate for tighter regulation.
Socialists will say that Twitter ought to be socialized.
Do you really want the government running Twitter?
See . . . just to pose the alternatives (either private and run by idiosyncratic self-interested individuals or public and run by the remote, bureaucratic, self-interested government) gives a sense of how there’s no satisfactory way to have these gigantic institutions in our lives.
They are too big, remote, bureaucratic, idiosyncratic, and self-interested — whether they are owned and controlled privately or publicly.
Here’s the alternative:
Greens seek the deconcentration of wealth and power; we assert that extreme disparities in personal wealth and concentrated control of productive assets are inherently undemocratic. Therefore we advocate an egalitarian economics which fosters sufficiency (meeting the basic the needs of everyone) while taking account of the natural limits of the Earth. We promote decentralization in the economic sphere as well as the political sphere. This would mean regionalizing economic activity as much as practical — in order to encourage local self-reliance and accountability.