We are being trained to perceive "X" as a "free speech" sanctuary. It is not.

Narrative is trumping reality. Again.

A REDEFINITION of what we would consider a “free speech” platform is taking place via a narrative.

The narrative has introduced a new baseline of meaning for what constitutes a “free speech platform”.

Here is the current narrative being amplified like mad all over “X”:

Narrative: “Entities are boycotting X. Therefore, X is a paragon of "free speech" supporting virtue.”

Here is an example of its current expression:

and another:

Reality: Entities are indeed boycotting X, and probably smearing/targeting X. However, that does not make X a paragon of "free speech platform" virtue:

Have people forgotten how “X” runs? What explicit and undisclosed policies determine what you see and don’t see? May I remind you of at least the ones that are documented?

“X” operates under a "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach” policy. Here is Musk explicitly describing his plan to institute it as reported by Forbes in November of 2022.

“X” operates under an explicit "we reserve right to non-transparently de-amplify and demonetize 'lawful but awful' speech” policy against whomever it wishes. Here is Musk’s hand-picked CEO, Linda Yaccarino, describing it to CNBC . "If you're going to post something that is lawful but awful, you get labeled. You get de-amplified which means it can not be shared and it is certainly de-monetized."

Insofar as we are being programmed to consider “X” to be an example of a free speech platform, we are being programmed to believe that what we see on “X” is an organic un-manipulated pure reflection of the range of opinions, insights, thoughts, data and analysis that exist in the world, on faith, and despite documented incompatible facts.

This redefinition will benefit those who would prefer we forget the actual conditions for intellectual freedom, and regard an imposter as the real thing.

An “anti-speech bully” attacking even a genuinely lesser anti-speech bully, does not magically transform the lesser anti-speech bully, into a genuine free speech defender.

So am I wrong? I hear next to no one expressing concern about the dangers which attend this questionable, loose and very intense building up of Musk as a Free Speech Champion (benevolent dictator of communication terms) swinging a flaming sword around his head affording light in the darkness.

But before you conclude that this lack of expressed concern is because my objections amount to some variation on a “No True Scotsman” argument, isn’t it at least worth asking whether my opinion is an authentically poor unpopular one or just a de-amplified one, and how would any of us know the difference?