There is no such thing as a free lunch, just as there is no such thing as free speech; it all comes at a cost. The real question is who pays the ferryman. And the price of the trip.

Let’s take social media, as we all know. Still, few are prepared to admit, it’s basically playing virtual Poohsticks, you cast your stick in the form of a tweet, truth or TikTok clip into the river, and pray to the gods of reasoning that the algorithms smile upon you.

It’s a bet: luck and logic, skill and chance all bit players in this gamble. Let’s face it, if that SEO expert really knew how it worked, they would be driving the Ferrari to the wine dealer rather than moaning about leaves on the tracks. Just like gambling, sometimes the dice are loaded. You just hope they are loaded in your direction.

Social media is a volume business, so sometimes you drop your twig into a tiny stream, while at other times it is swept away and lost in a raging torrent. So many variables, yet the only constant is this: the relationship between volume and profit.

In the grand scheme of things, you and your sticks are insignificant; what really matters is water under the bridge. It’s not rocket science, but fluid dynamics. The greater the volume, the greater the profits. The architects of the stream would rather see a boiling, foaming torrent than ever glimpse the gravel on the bed of a quietly babbling brook.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that social media exploits the Absurdism in our lives and monetises that chaos. Some things are good for business; other things aren’t.

No matter where you stand on the shooting that killed Charlie Kirk, you can’t escape the logic that it was good for business. The reasoning is bulletproof; in the aftermath of the shooting, social media volumes increased, and no matter how fleeting that will have had a corresponding increase in profits.

It’s interesting that as the arguments over free speech in America rage, they have been blind to that inescapable truth. Logic dictates that anything that restricts the volume of a volume business restricts profits.

Thus, an attack on free speech is an attack on capitalism and, therefore, an attack on America itself. Also, while you and your tiny twig may be insignificant, those who own the river are not. Social media has concentrated wealth and power into the hands of a highly powerful elite and they wield the rod.

Do you think they would allow anyone to build a dam upstream?

Sometimes you can’t see the twigs for the trees. What is going on in America is not an attack on free speech but something much more sinister.

Again, if you look at things logically, and even though it pains me to say it, in the context of total volume and in the eyes of a data scientist the output of Jimmy Kimmel and the journalists who have been silenced are but tiny twigs in a raging torrent that flows unabated.

The reality is that Donald Trump just wants to control the narrative, not restrict it. The claims of a generalised attack on free speech are indeed a red herring, for the real event is a demonstration of power.

It is an attempt to install an autocratic state where the flow of information might be managed, where loyalty is rewarded with amplification, and dissent is punished with silence, simply by restricting access to the twigs or the river.

Ultimately, Trump does not want to reduce the volume of speech but to steer its content and direction. He doesn’t want to turn off the tap; he just wants to be the one holding the hosepipe.

If he really attempted to implement a system that both restricted free speech and volume of speech, that would bring him into direct conflict with the very ferrymen who made him in the first place. And that is a price Donald Trump could not afford to pay.