Contained in 95 pages of solid legal jargon, Elon Musk’s Twitter warning was clear: Don’t use your significant power on the social media platform to attack the company.
The world’s richest man and a waiting Twitter owner signed a $ 44 billion (£ 35 billion) takeover deal last week, confirming he could tweet about the deal as long as “such tweets don’t belittle the company or any other business.” to be one of its representatives ”.
Yet hours later, the self-proclaimed “freedom of speech absolutist” engaged in tweets criticizing senior Twitter staff, including interacting with a political podcast host who called the company’s legal director Vijaya Gade “the supreme defender of censorship.” .
Vijaya Gade, Twitter’s legal director, was the victim of a musk tweet. Photo: Mike Blake / Reuters
The inevitable consequence for Gadde was one of the darker phenomena on social media: accumulation. Comments include calls for her to lose her job and, in a typical example of unpleasant digital hyperbole, statements that Gade will “go down in history as a horrifying person.”
Announcing the deal to buy Twitter last week, Musk said: “Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital city square where issues vital to the future of humanity are discussed. Musk has a history of controversial tweets, but his post in Gadde has raised concerns in some circles about Tesla’s CEO’s idea of free speech. Will it come at the cost of protecting Twitter users from abuse, cyberbullying and extremist content?
“I think Musk’s concept of free expression is both controversial and stupid,” said Gillian York, a freedom of speech activist and author of Silicon Values: The Future of Freedom of Speech Under Supervision of Capitalism. “The absolutism of a platform like Twitter does not take into account the real damage that Twitter can do as a global platform, such as used by malicious actors such as Islamic State and right-wing extremists. She added that there is a difference between the idea of freedom of speech, embodied by standing on a platform at Speakers’ Corner in London, and online, where you can “scream in the void in front of billions of people.” She says, “Platforms like Twitter are a very different animal, and you’re talking about someone’s ability to ruin someone’s life in an instant.”
Musk’s concept of free expression is both controversial and silly Gillian York, author
Gadde’s publication sparked a wave of expressions of support and criticism of Musk from current and former employees. A group of female Twitter employees, led by @TwitterWomen, posted “Women on Twitter are the best of us”, while the platform’s former CEO, Dick Costolo, accused the billionaire of “making CEOs of the company that has just you bought. subject to harassment and threats. ”
There is also speculation that Musk will allow back banned figures on the platform, including former President Donald Trump, who has denied wanting to return after his account was permanently suspended in January 2021. However, The Wall Street Journal announced this weekend that Musk was “scared” that Trump remained banned. The Center for Combating Digital Hate, a US-British campaign, said recovering people like Trump, far-right expert Katie Hopkins and InfoWars founder Alex Jones would mean that Twitter’s security rules “no longer exist.”
The deal, which is backed by the board but needs to be approved by shareholders, has also raised concerns about a person controlling such a large platform. Twitter is significant, although most of its 217 million daily users receive their news elsewhere. In Europe, only 9% of people use Twitter for news, up to 12% in North America, 14% in the United Kingdom and 35% in Africa, according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at Oxford University. But those people who use Twitter are the political and media equivalent of influential people – journalists, commentators, celebrities and politicians.
“The fact that many politicians, influential people and experts are frequent users and that some journalists present what they say in their reports means that Twitter is obviously an important part of the way the political and media agenda is set,” he said. Rasmus Klais Nielsen, Director of RISJ. “In that sense, a wealthy business tycoon who owns it raises the same issues as wealthy people controlling influential media or other social media platforms. The political question is how individual countries want to regulate such property. “
The headquarters of Twitter in San Francisco. Photo: Amy Osborne / AFP / Getty Images
The deal is not expected to be monitored by US competition authorities, but politicians are beginning to address the issue of Internet regulation and the freedom of speech issues that come with it. Remarkable laws are being introduced in the United Kingdom and the EU, and they will have a direct impact on the shape of Musk’s town square.
In another tweet following the agreement last week, Musk acknowledged that individual states’ concept of free speech would go beyond his own. He writes: “By ‘freedom of speech’ I mean simply what is in accordance with the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. “But the law – in the UK and the EU – is about to change.
In the United Kingdom, the government is introducing an online safety bill that imposes a duty of care on technology companies to protect consumers from harmful content. Some of the content it covers is already banned by Twitter-like content, in particular posts containing things that are criminal in the offline world, such as terrorist content or child sexual abuse content. But it will also require major platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok to deal with “legal but harmful” content – in other words, posts that fall below the crime threshold but can still cause psychological or physical harm. Defenders of freedom of speech (York calls it “anti-utopian”) have worried this, but Musk will have to abide by it – Britain’s communications regulator Ofcom could fine companies up to 10% or their turnover for breaking the law.
“Services operated in the United Kingdom are subject to UK regulations. Online platforms are no different from services in other sectors. Once introduced, Twitter will have to satisfy Ofcom for complying with its consumer protection obligations, ”said Maew Walsh, a political consultant who helped shape the regulatory framework behind the bill.
At the same time, the EU is implementing the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires major social media platforms to do more to tackle illegal content. This includes forcing users to tag such content in an “easy and effective way” so that it can be removed quickly. “Twitter, even owned by Mr Musk, needs to moderate content to comply with EU rules. If he wants to do business in the EU, that’s a fact, “said Kristel Schaldemos, a Danish MEP and chief negotiator for the DSA.
In the United States, content moderation has been a hot topic among lawmakers for years. Although there is some bipartisan support for the reforms, the question of how and whether the platforms should be held accountable for the content published on their websites remains controversial.
By “freedom of speech” I simply mean what is in accordance with the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less freedom of speech, they will ask the government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is against the will of the people.
– Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 26, 2022
Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act 1996 currently exempts platforms from liability for content published by others. Both Trump and President Joe Biden have voiced support for Section 230 reform, albeit for different reasons. Republicans argue, largely without evidence, that right-wing voices are censored, while Democrats say the platforms host harmful content, misinformation and misinformation without consequences.
But activists say reforming or repealing section 230 could do more harm than good: it could cause companies to delete large sections of publications, even if they are not harmful, for fear of breaking the law – perhaps in the process of failure of repressed groups one of their most powerful platforms.
“Section 230 is a fundamental law on human rights and freedom of expression worldwide,” said Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future. “No matter what Musk wants to do, changing section 230 will make it even harder for platforms like Twitter to moderate harmful content through a human rights framework, and platforms are more likely to remove large chunks of legal content to avoid legal action. disputes.
The Twitter purchase deal also includes a $ 1 billion cut-off fee, which can be paid by each party depending on how the deal breaks down. As it becomes increasingly clear that the implementation of his vision of freedom of speech faces significant obstacles, Musk may see this as a fee worth paying for.
Add Comment