The Washington Post and NYT response to the
platform arbitrarily banning its reporters shows how
liberal institutions really struggle when dealing with
the far right.

They quietly negotiated behind the scenes to keep
their reporters on there, essentially leaving independ-
ent journalists and the intercept's journalists out in
the cold. This is before we even get to the targeted
purge of anti-fascist accounts that has gone largely
ignored by the mainstream press.

This meant that Musk was able to silence large
amounts of his critics while weakening the hand of
the liberal outlets. It has set the stage for a periodic
cycle of purges now.

| also want to be very clear here, this is a critique of
the editorial boards of these institutions and not the
journalists who were banned for covering Musk.

The only way to win that interaction is to go nuclear
and impose as many costs on Musk as possible
through a coordinated response on the front pages
of the major outlets with something like a blacked
out front page with the faces of the journalists below
a with a big with the headline

"MUSK BREAKS HIS WORD; KILLS FREE SPEECH, PURGES JOURNALISTS" etc.

Anything short of that means you're applying
pressure when you are in a weaker position to do so.
This is difficult for liberal institutions because of their
belief in civility politics, pretense of impartiality and
defacto trust for other institutions.

#twitterdammerung

*Reposted due to accidental deletion when trying to edit a typo