When a Twitter “mob” goes after someone (nonviolently, on Twitter) threatening to “cancel” because of comments thought to be offensive, they aren’t suppressing free speech, they are exercising it.
When a person is banned from Twitter because of glorifying violence (a line in the sand that Twitter, a private company, is allowed to draw), that ban isn’t suppressing free speech, it’s exercising the company’s own right to express and act upon a belief in non-violence.
When Twitter is deemed to be “too important of a public space” to be allowed to exercise its own right to set policy on acceptable and unacceptable speech, and the answer is to turn the reins over — from the board of directors of a freely traded corporation to a single individual who pinky swears to protect “free speech” — that’s just dumb.
College students shouting down a conservative speaker - free speech against free speech. College students attacking a conservative speaker: criminal violence. Sitting US president inciting deadly criminal violence and then complaining about a Twitter ban - this not even a legitimate free speech/censorship issue (given the president’s platform). Rich bro predicting the collapse of human civilization because said president was banned from Twitter…I can’t even.
The issue here is whether Twitter should continue to be afforded protection under section 230. For me, that answer is clearly no. Twitter is moderating content that aligns with their political viewpoints while also claiming not to be publishers. They can’t have both. If Twitter wants to continue to be a publisher of curated content that aligns with their world vision, that’s their choice but they should lose the section 230 protection.
Twitter has no problem with the accounts of the Chinese Communist Party, the Houthis and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. All while shutting down the sitting president of the US? There is no moral equivalency there. That is publishing, not moderating.
While I refrain from discussing my thoughts on your ultimate view, you are absolutely right: this should be looked at under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, NOT the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
I don’t really care what the law says because I don’t view Twitter as an entity that needs to be punished for what they are doing. It is simply a matter of integrity to me for them to honor their claim to be a forum for speech and idea exchange. Instead, they have chosen to be self righteous arbiters of truth.
Their moderation philosophy aims to take out high profile accounts. Any claimed intent to shut down lies, fake news, slander, etc. is laughable because it misses so much. It’s everywhere on their platform. There is no way for them to employ enough people, or make smart enough algorithms to properly moderate such a large forum. So they just focus on accounts on the wrong side of the political aisle.
No question that moderation is difficult, but implementing common sense ideas are not. More importantly, Twitter’s big issue is ‘how does it grow in the US’? Daily users, which advertisers care about, has has barely moved since the start of covid, when nearly everyone was home and presumably had time to tweet. Twitter needs to figure out a way to grow its numbers, i.e., expand its viewers. 10% penetration is a niche product, and does not align with the valuation.
Except that the entire rationale for this bid is couched in the language of “free speech”, ie changes to moderation policies. To your point about attracting more users to make more money, one obvious way would be to invite a certain former president back onto the platform. So even a desire to improve the business itself can’t be decoupled from moderation policies.
sure, but moderation comes in degrees. It’s not either a) run a tight ship; or, 2) wide open west where anything goes. If one has a moderation gauge from 1-10 (with 10 being the highest) and say, Twitter is now at 6, Elon could dial it down to 4, and it would still have plenty of moderation. Heck, if Twitter dialed it down to 4 on their own, Elon would probably go away.
Nearly choking on my coffee at some posts. IF Twitter is so benign, why not open the algorithm and take a look?
My biggest issue is, you can’t have it both ways, be willing to censor others yet not allow your opinions to be censored.
I’m waiting for Plan B. Here’s my guesstimate based on what’s floating around. Going to be Thiel, Cuban and someone else 15% each with Musk. Or they are going to set up a way for people to let Musk vote their proxies. ( I don’t know if there is a way to do this but I know boards of directors often ask for this prior to a vote so I’m assuming it can be done).
Last thing, many who can’t stand Musk have sold in recent days. So the remaining shareholders might lean toward Musk rather than against him. Getting ready for
Yes and no. Musk has said that his interest is in free speech re: Twitter. But he never said that was his sole reason. It could be multi-faceted with free speech, financial gain, exposing hypocrisy/the algorithm/etc are also goals. Since this is now in process, I’d guess that it evolves a bit differently as each side choses its course.
Will be something to watch.
I was waiting for all the “known rulings” requiring Twitter et al to allow anyone to post on a purely private actor site, regardless of the falsity what is being posted. I understand Wikipedia, as well as the William & Mary law review article I posted, might not be sufficient or erudite enough.
Bottom line: Twitter can do want it wants. If Musk takes it over and takes it private, then he can do what he wants. Until then…well, it speaks for itself.
That made me LOL. Why do people like Musk think moderation is easy? Perhaps it’s because he’s pretended for years that self-driving cars are also easy and his followers have fallen for that too.
Has he said moderation is easy? I don’t understand why many people like this author are intent on proving how stupid Elon is, and do so by mincing his words and speculating on what will happen.
Why not let the Twitter sale go through? If they’re right about his lack of ability to run Twitter, one would think they would be overjoyed to see him take it over and fail. Maybe they’re terrified that he will succeed.
Not me. I think the idea is insane. Last thing I want in the world, someone hacking a system of self driving cars while I’m on the road. I’ve driven in some crazy places, but that would top it all.
I do think moderation of online conversation is easier than many of the things he has done. Open the algorithm, keep people honest about nothing being manipulated. Have written policies for what can’t be said/shown. All else goes. Seems like the biggest fear of some in the twitter sphere is, that they won’t get to present only 1/2 of the opinions out there. Let it ride. IF I don’t agree with someone’s opinion I’ll more on. Disinformation usually is rife on any major media station in America ( and the world) from CNN to FoxNews. Lots of lies and nonsense and people know it. They switch the channel or don’t watch. Does it harm me to see some crazy story? Not so much because being able to discern things is an important skill.
Indeed. If moderation is so difficult that only the current Twitter employees can do it, ad revenues will plummet and Musk’s investment tanks. OTOH, how difficult can it be to have a rule that articles from established daily newspapers – not named the Enquirer – can be posted/linked/quoted?
Moderation has the exact same problems as self-driving: people think it’s just about writing rules for how to behave in particular circumstances and then you find that in the real world there are an endless variety of corner cases, like cars confusing the full moon with a traffic light or people using social media to coordinate a coup.
Landing rockets is much easier since they respond to the laws of physics.
Or maybe they are concerned that if Musk throws away a decade plus of figuring out what does and doesn’t work in terms of moderation, we’ll end up with more accidental side effects like the genocide in Myanmar?
Of course in reality there is no formal offer and it’s all just a PR stunt to distract from the charges that he’s likely to face from the SEC and DOJ, by painting them as acting to limit his “free speech” instead of taking action against market manipulation and potential fraud.
Except that self-driving is automatic but moderation, like cc, has real-life humans that can make a call on reported/flagged items.
“it’s all just a PR stunt…”
Possibly, but my guess is that it will be an expensive one. The SEC will likely fine him the max for not disclosing his stake when it exceeded 4.9%, and California juries will easily award plaintiffs $$ for stock manipulation (again, for not disclosing his 5%+ stake).
