On Thursday morning, Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter to save freedom of speech.
“I invested in Twitter because I believe in its potential to be a platform for free speech around the world, and I believe that free speech is a public imperative for a functioning democracy,” wrote the Tesla and SpaceX billionaire, who recently gained 9.2 percent. pledge on Twitter – in the documentation. “However, after making my investment, I now realize that the company will neither thrive nor serve this social imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company. “
It is not clear how this gambit will develop, but there is a more fundamental question: what does Elon Musk think freedom of speech is and who is threatening it? Free expression is a cornerstone of an open society, and as governments around the world see repression against Internet platforms, there is a complex interplay between different visions of what should be allowed online. But despite his broad statement, Musk’s gaze seems almost entirely focused on the far smaller issue of Twitter’s own internal rules.
In 2011, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo claimed that Twitter belonged to the “wing of freedom of speech of the party for freedom of speech”, a phrase that has since been used by critics of calls to moderate the platform. In the context of that era, freedom of speech disputes mainly involved Twitter’s relations with governments. The platform won applause for allowing activists to organize under the threat of political repression in Egypt and other countries. Costolo boasted of his fight with the US government for data on WikiLeaks-related accounts that were investigated after diplomatic telegrams leaked.
“The risk of civilization decreases the more we can increase trust in Twitter”
In a TED interview with Chris Anderson on Thursday, Musk’s concerns were more vague – and focused almost entirely on Twitter itself. Musk did not show much appetite to combat global restrictions on speech – noting that “I think Twitter should comply with the country’s laws.” Instead, he raised the specter of tweets being “mysteriously raised and lowered” by Twitter’s sorting algorithm, which Musk said should be made public. (Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has also provided a version with more transparent algorithmic recommendations.)
“It’s just very important that people have the reality and the perception that they can speak freely within the law,” Musk told Anderson. “I think in general, the risk of civilization decreases the more we can increase trust in Twitter as a public platform.
Musk reflects the common assumption that Twitter is a “city square” that has become the main arbiter of what people can say. But governments around the world still have a huge role to play in what is being said and how. In the years since Costolo’s comment, the laws on online speech have multiplied. Several countries have adopted “fake news” rules, which (in theory) should curb the spread of false online information, and some have threatened to ban non-compliant platforms. European privacy rules introduce a “right to be forgotten”, which requires platforms to remove disturbing information published online in certain circumstances. India has imposed a strict legal regime on social media companies, requiring local offices to appoint government liaisons, and at one point attacked Twitter offices.
Twitter is far from the last word on what people say online
Even in the United States, where there are some of the most permissive speaking laws in the world, Twitter moderators are not the only authority at work. The platform has some of the lowest standards for adult content for a large social network, but the 2018 FOSTA-SESTA law threatens the legal protection of companies if they allow content related to sex work. U.S. copyright law has a significant exception to the normal rules protecting platforms from legal liability, prompting Twitter to do things like remove stolen jokes. The way companies like Twitter interpret these types of rules has a huge effect on consumers’ livelihoods and creative freedoms.
Big technology platforms don’t just comply with US law; they also play a role in lobbying for new ones. Jack Dorsey has appeared before Congress several times during his tenure as chief executive, during which he was asked about issues such as how lawmakers should change section 230, one of the central pillars of online speech. Musk has not indicated what role the new private Twitter may play in this debate, and it is not clear that he is interested. We also don’t know how Musk’s Twitter version would engage with other digital goalkeepers. If Apple wants to cut off access to NSFW content through its iOS app, for example – something that made Discord and other services do – will Twitter play ball?
Far from being better equipped to protect freedom of speech, Musk-owned Twitter may be in a weaker position than the public one. Musk’s involvement in many other industries – including telecommunications with Starlink, space travel with SpaceX and cars with Tesla – will give regulators and politicians extra leverage to put pressure on Twitter. This type of lever is already a powerful weapon against highly vertically integrated companies such as Apple, which respects Chinese censorship and surveillance demands to avoid losing access to a huge market for its hardware. Musk’s business has the added twist that it often involves government contracts and subsidies – the kind of deal that a high-profile moderation battle could put at risk.
Musk-owned Twitter may be even more vulnerable to government pressure
Twitter’s speech has never been as absolutist as Costolo’s comment suggests. Even while he and other officials still used the phrase, they adhered to French and German hate speech rules by “retaining” neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic posts in those countries. The company has promised to try to enforce the rules “narrowly and transparently”, but “we must comply with the laws of the countries in which we operate”, Costolo admitted after a French court ordered it to block hateful tweets. If you want to make a profit as a global company, there is a limit to how many laws you can stubbornly ignore – there are reasons why many tools to avoid censorship are open source and non-commercial.
But Costolo at least acknowledged that Twitter is committed to a much larger world. Meanwhile, my colleague Liz Lopato has aptly drawn up plans to take on Musk as a virtuoso troll on Twitter trying to keep his favorite toy. And there’s only one enemy the troll really fears: modifications.
Add Comment