With all the talk of Elon Musk’s possible hostile takeover of Twitter, that won’t erase Twitter’s hostile takeover of the modern “public square.” After all, that’s what precipitated Musk’s recent move on Twitter.

Recall Bobby Axelrod’s (Damian Lewis), arguably, best line on the TV show Billions? “What’s the point of having F*** you money, if you never say F*** you?” Perhaps, Musk can relate.

When talking about “private” businesses like the social media giants, here, private comes with massive caveats. Congressional caveats that allow them to avoid legal liability for their user’s content and for Twitter’s “editorial discretion.” It allows them to pretend they are impartial platforms, like a “utility,” a phone company.

Let me see… has AT&T, any phone company, or any electric, gas, or water company banned a sitting President of the United States from their phone or power services? Pretty sure that’s a no.

This came to mind when I read a tweet from Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo, a unique talent and genuinely nice guy. He provided a necessary reminder of just what the social media oligarchs have done to Americans—and how they did it.

Pags was replying to what would ordinarily be a reasonable tweet, but it came from former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, @jack. It’s a tweet that makes it hard to tell if he’s truly that self-unaware, that narcissistic, or simply that tone-deaf.

Dorsey was responding to a CNBC story that reported, “‘White House says it expects inflation to be ‘extraordinarily elevated….’”

So, @jack replied, “Every administration, republican or democrat, has an opportunity to build trust with the public.

“Instead, every single time, they choose deception and zero accountability. It’s not the party, it’s the system.”

Again, it’s a reasonable perspective, but did Dorsey really utter the words “build trust with the public?” And “they choose deception and zero accountability?” Hello in there, @jack. Are you listening to yourself?

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

Joe Pags adeptly challenged the tech guru, tweeting, “You’re not wrong, Jack — but consider the hypocrisy here. You invited us here. Told us it’s a digital town square. Asked us to bring our audiences so we could talk directly to them on this site. Then you put algorithms in place so many of us would not be seen.” And outright restricted and banned others.

How did your mystifying policies and mystical algorithms “build trust with the public?” Or was that deception? Is your definition of “public” limited to the Democrat/leftist “public?” And with the congressional protections, where is your accountability?

Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and the others must realize the hypocrisy, right? It’s an important question. It makes us follow up with another question, was this betrayal an intentional bait and switch, or did Big Tech/Social Media just become too big for the political opportunists, and their owners, not to exploit it?

I don’t know Dorsey’s heart on this issue, especially now that he’s out as CEO, and especially considering his tweets such as the one we’re discussing. Does he truly believe “public trust” is important? Or, again, is he playing a game where when he says, “public trust” he means, “leftist, Democrat, trust?”

As for Zuckerberg, if he hadn’t intended to betray some users at Facebook’s inception, he has proven his intent to betray them now, as time passed. His apparent Zuckerbucks disruption of the 2020 elections has removed any doubt in my mind about his motivations for censoring conservatives.

Even if our contaminated criminal justice system doesn’t find his actions illegal, the words immoral and unethical sure spring to mind. The 2020 election malfeasance news coming out of battleground states like Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia is more than disturbing. The Washington Examiner reported that 90 percent of Zuck’s bucks in these states went to “Biden counties.” But, let’s get back to @jack.

Pags is spot on. Dorsey created a brilliant platform designed to facilitate communication between users. It was touted as a place where people could share, banter, discuss, debate, deliberate ideas, and share information. Dorsey essentially told people to trust Twitter, and Twitter would trust them.

Most users have small followings, and some have (or had) massive followings. President Donald Trump famously had one of those enormous followings. His followers are Americans who believe in his fearless leadership, like that he keeps his promises and appreciates his tangible accomplishments. These are mainstream conservative, libertarian, and Republican Americans who simply agree with their President’s political philosophy.

But as the Big Tech/social media leviathan grew, so did its masters’ appetites for political power. Stories about people such as George Washington refusing such political power when offered, which helped to create what it means to be an American, apparently do not touch people like Dorsey. Rather than revere him as liberty-lovers do, it seems his ilk disdains Washington’s integrity, sense of honor, and naiveté.

Washington took advantage of his “opportunity to build trust with the public.” He did it by being honest with them, fighting for them, and risking his life and fortune to help create a free nation for them. And also, by declining offers to accept the type of power Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and the others would likely never decline. Why would they? They seem only to want more of it.

Pags has done us a favor by providing this reminder of how innocently social media started, cajoling us to come within its gates, and then how it became such a liberty-hating behemoth. And, as Pags pointed out, we must never forget it was @jack who invited @us into the digital public square, only to pull the rope taut once we’d stepped into the snare.