Why was acquiring that major social platform such a priority? According to recent commentary, the driving force came down to concerns about mounting restrictions on free speech. When a sitting political leader got deplatformed, it signaled a troubling trajectory for content moderation policies.

The narrative goes: "I recognized the situation was becoming critical. The constraints were tightening rapidly." This decision reflected broader anxieties about who controls the narrative on digital platforms—a theme increasingly central to Web3 and decentralized social discourse.

Whether you see it as a free speech stance or a strategic acquisition, the move highlighted a growing tension: traditional platforms wielding centralized control over discourse versus emerging voices calling for more open, permissionless alternatives. It's a debate reshaping how communities think about digital ownership and user sovereignty in the age of blockchain-based social networks.