Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is a risk to democracy
The worst for democracy is uncertain. It could happen with the richest man in the world taking over Twitter. For example, Elon Musk may quickly decide not to change much and put security measures in place that limit the most objectionable content under penalty of seeing millions of users flee. “A platform that allows people to spew misogynist and racist slurs (…) will quickly lose advertisers, business partners and sponsors, turning it into a commercially unviable shell within months.” Washington post Imran Ahmed, founder of the Center to Fight Digital Hate.
But he could also be stubborn and follow his vision. A billionaire who owns 100% of an unlisted company is not accountable to any other shareholders. He already stated in April of last year that profit is not his main motivation: “It’s not a way to make money (…). I’m not interested in the economic aspect at all.” So it’s possible, if not likely, that this “free speech absolutist” of the world will have to learn to live with his libertarian tendencies. Please fasten your seat belts.
What does Musk propose? He clarified this at a TED conference this spring: “By ‘freedom of speech,’ I just mean what’s legal. I’m against censorship that goes too far outside the law. If people want less freedom of speech, they’ll do that. I’m asking the government to make laws to that end.” do, so to outlaw it is against the will of the people”. Law, all law, nothing but law. Plain and simple! By framing the debate this way, Elon Musk is part of Silicon Valley’s long techno-libertarian tradition, according to which technology is an idealized instrument of freedom. , is the perfect tool to fight against the tendency of governments to control everything free speech.
Congress was paralyzed
This view deeply influenced the laws that still govern the Internet in the United States, particularly Section 230 of the 1995 law, which gives online service providers broad powers to post, distribute, and monitor content. when writing something illegal. In other words, the law has given Facebook and the likes of Twitter full power to police their homes. Unlike the European Union, which passed regulation of digital services and markets this year, the US Congress appears doomed to paralysis, with Republicans accusing it of censoring social media and left-wing conservative speech. Ted Cruz of Texas, a far-right senator, thus sees Musk’s takeover of Twitter as “the biggest evolution in favor of free speech in decades.”
The problem is that this vision of freedom of expression as defined by Elon Musk is a caricature, contradictory and dangerous. Cartoon? At TechCrunch, David Coldewey summed up what many, including those in Silicon Valley, were thinking: “Elon Musk once again embarrasses himself on the world stage, proudly denying elementary school-level free speech, censorship, and the rights and privileges of individuals and government agencies to this aggressive ignoramus from one of the largest communications platforms on the planet. the fact that he’s taking control of one should make your brain shudder.”
Freedom of expression is more important than “respect for the law”.
First of all, freedom of expression in the new digital world is not as simple as simply “following the law”. It’s an extremely complex and nuanced concept that American courts are constantly considering, so hard to define what is “lawful” in a universe where the Internet can infinitely amplify any message. To take just one example, what constitutes incitement to violence? Then there is the misinterpretation of Musk’s statement that he is “against censorship that goes too far beyond the law.” The moderating function performed by a private company like Twitter is not censorship, but rather a function of freedom of expression guaranteed by law.
contradictory? First, in principle. Musk affirms his hostility to any restrictions on free speech, but how does he justify his promise to rid the platform of bots and spam (bot accounts and unwanted advertising) unless he is clearly inciting violence? On a personal level, then: Musk hasn’t been shy about stifling speech he doesn’t like in the past. Tesla pressured laid-off workers to sign non-disparagement contracts and arbitration clauses. Employees have accused the company of racial discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation for safety concerns. Musk himself “has a habit of trying to control what reporters, commentators, and even customers say about him and his companies,” recalls Spencer Bokat-Lindell. New York Times.
“pedo boy”
But the real problem with Musk’s extreme libertarian philosophy lies elsewhere: it’s simply dangerous. “Musk doesn’t seem to realize that today you really need moderation to have free speech,” Katie Harbath, Facebook’s former director of public policy, told The Daily Mail. Washington post. Whether it’s direct violence against minorities (as in Burma or India), manipulation of elections (2016 in the US), or persecution of one or another segment of the population, there is a countless history of social media being responsible for horrors. there are examples. population.
Not all of these uncensored messages or videos directly promote violence. For example, Elon Musk did not violate US law when he tweeted someone he disagreed with as a “pedo boy” or compared Canadian Prime Minister Justin Bieber to Adolf Hitler (the tweet was later deleted). According to him, it is necessary to endure all these insults, you just need to have a “thick skin”. It is easy to imagine the scope of such logic. As long as we don’t call for violence against them, gays, transgenders, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. we have the right to write all the horrors and sarcasm imaginable on it. But what’s to stop Trump from relentlessly fighting the election’s legitimacy, as he refrains from calling for congressional intervention — contrary to what he’s indicated he won’t be doing on Twitter?
Still, it might not be the worst. Musk is a smart man. But he is also an ideologue and, in his words, an “absolute” ideologue.
