Joe Rogan credited Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter with fundamentally changing the social media landscape, arguing that the platform previously fostered widespread self-censorship while government officials and intelligence personnel had direct channels for influencing content moderation.

During a conversation with podcaster Chris Williamson, Rogan said Musk's acquisition was particularly significant because users previously faced the possibility of being removed from the platform for expressing certain views.

"Twitter being purchased was giant, because before that you could get silenced."

Rogan argued that the threat of losing access to the platform had consequences beyond formal moderation decisions because people began regulating their own speech.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

"So if you could get silenced, you self-contained, right? Without being policed, you policed yourself, because people self-censored, worried about losing their jobs, worried about being called out."

He pointed to an incident involving a sports broadcaster as an example of the cultural climate surrounding public speech.

"Look, a guy got fired. Guy got fired from a broadcast, I think it was a hockey broadcast, some sports broadcast, for saying, All lives matter. Imagine. You got fired."

Rogan continued:

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

"Someone said something about Black Lives Matter, and he said, Hey, all lives matter. And then fired! Fired! You're kicked off of your job. Like people were losing their f**king minds, man. The derangement"

Williamson responded by describing the political and cultural atmosphere of 2020 and 2021 as something deserving long-term examination.

"The derangement of 2020 and 2021 is it should be studied for the rest of time."

Rogan then shifted the conversation from cultural pressure to government involvement with Twitter before Musk purchased the company.

"There was active government involvement in Twitter. They were actively censoring and removing posts and making accounts banned."

Williamson characterized the purpose of that activity as an effort:

"To shape the narrative."

Rogan alleged that intelligence personnel had direct connections to the company and operated behind the scenes.

"And they were doing it in a back door with some intelligence agents that had been embedded in the old Twitter."

According to Rogan, Musk's acquisition brought those relationships into public view.

"When Elon bought it, that was all exposed."

Rogan argued that the connections were not distant or theoretical but involved direct communications with Twitter.

"These people were like, direct connection with Twitter."

He further alleged that accurate information was sometimes targeted and that scientists and researchers were among those who faced account penalties.

"They were pulling down factual stories; they were banning accounts of scientists and researchers who were accurate."

Rogan described the situation before Musk's acquisition in stark terms.

"I mean, it was dark."

He suggested that the passage of time and changes to the platform have caused some people to forget how restrictive he believes Twitter once was.

"People don't realize how dark it was, because we're out of it now, and now it's all like Nazi memes and Nick Fuentes clips."

Rogan concluded by contrasting the current platform with its predecessor and cited writer Meghan Murphy's suspension as an example of the moderation policies he opposed.

"But if you go back before Elon purchased it, it was a censorship, dystopian hellhole where if you said, A man is never a woman, like Meghan Murphy did, you're banned for life."

WATCH:

The exchange centered on Rogan's argument that Musk's takeover did more than change Twitter's ownership.

In his view, it exposed previously hidden relationships between government officials and the social media company while changing the broader public debate over censorship, content moderation and freedom of expression online.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.