A false utopia... Did Elon Musk really buy Twitter to defend freedom of opinion and expression?

Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks have spent billions of dollars and employed armies of people to develop and enforce policies to curb hate speech and disinformation.

In doing so, they have angered not only some conservative right-wing politicians, who claim these measures amount to censorship, but also people on the left, who say tech companies' application of censorship is limited and biased.

Simultaneously, Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla and the world's richest man, who is also a prolific Twitter user with more than 80 million followers, touted the benefits of free speech in the lead-up to his aggressive bid to take over the platform, conducting a poll on his account asking In it, the decision to sell the platform to him must be taken by the shareholders and not by the board of directors.

During the TED conference in Vancouver, Musk promoted the benefits of free speech on the Internet, and said during an interview at the time, “I think it is very important to have an inclusive arena for free speech,” and then continued, “Twitter has become a bit like a city square.” De facto, so it is really important that people feel that they are able to speak freely within the limits of the law."

Musk has previously referred to himself as an extremist in his defense of free speech, and that he also hopes to make the company's algorithm publicly available to help people understand how content appears on their pages.

He also said that platforms must be regulated according to US laws, a comment widely interpreted to mean that he was calling for limited moderation in content, because in the US speech away from direct calls for violence is largely protected by the Constitution.

Musk later asserted that his desire to acquire Twitter was not about making money, adding, "My strong guiding feeling is that having an extremely trusted and broadly inclusive public platform is critical to the future of civilization."

(1)

False utopia

But the utopian idealism portrayed by the Tesla CEO has long been gone, and it doesn't take into account what's happening in the real world, say tech executives, Twitter employees and Silicon Valley insiders.

While Musk secured a hostile $43 billion takeover bid on Twitter, critics say his ambition for what the platform should be as an uncensored space is naive, one that would hurt the company's growth prospects and make the platform insecure.

When people talk about freedom of expression in this colloquial context, what they fear is that some entities may be so powerful as to match the authority of the state.

Musk talks a lot about the benefits of freedom of opinion and expression, but he has no experience managing that on a social media platform where hundreds of millions of tweets are posted daily, and where things can get increasingly chaotic.

However, the billionaire offered some clues as to what his general approach to content moderation on Twitter might look like.

In a Ted Talk interview, Musk said he plans to leave content - no matter how controversial - and remove only content that clearly violates the law, such as inciting violence.

This would be a stark departure from the current content moderation policies of Twitter and other social media platforms, which in recent years have aimed to limit hate speech, harassment and other types of content on the platform that it considers harmful.

(Elon Musk interview on TED)

But beyond the rhetoric about freedom of expression, Musk's motives for buying Twitter seem rather complex.

This "free speech" mantra has earned Musk support from many conservatives who feel Twitter and other social media companies unfairly discriminate against them.

For Musk, it's more than that: This deal is also a way to exert influence over a major media platform used by some of the world's most important politicians, celebrities and leaders.

Given Musk's public battle with the Securities and Exchange Commission over his tweets, owning Twitter provides a valuable means for Musk to be the one setting the rules.

No freedom in Silicon Valley

Many who disagree with Musk's stated vision for Twitter say they will leave the platform.

But where will they go?

To Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook or Sundar Pichai on YouTube?

These platforms don't really look that much different than Twitter, so the ideal solution might be to embrace decentralized and open source alternatives like Mastodon and Matrix, but the Silicon Valley giants have gone to great lengths to make the move. Between platforms is difficult.

These giants have made it nearly impossible for these other projects to attract enough users to provide a meaningful alternative to people who use social media for professional reasons or even to keep in touch with friends and family.

It is safe, then, to say that true freedom of expression online - where we have real choice in what we say and where we say it - will never be possible unless the regulatory ground changes to allow alternative platforms to achieve a network effect.

That's why the best response to Musk's takeover of Twitter is for lawmakers to pass the US Online Innovation and Choice Act and the Open Application Markets Act, a law to give monopoly in the internet space.

(2)

The monopoly power of the big tech companies is clearly at odds with the promise of a free and open internet.

Over the past two decades, online spaces have fallen victim to privatization and mass centralization.

Big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have taken over the market, in everything from e-commerce to search engines.

These giants regularly buy up startups rather than compete with them or simply copy a competing service, then prioritize them over their existing massive platform, putting pressure on smaller competitors.

(3)

The truth, then, is that while elites and tech tycoons like Elon Musk portray basic content moderation practices as inherently incompatible with freedom of expression, less privileged internet users know that having tools to tackle targeted harassment and hateful content is actually essential to creating free online communities, where people are safe Enough to speak freely.

This leads us to the next dilemma for social networks: the growing dominance of tech giants in the world of data, and the disregard for privacy rights.

With no alternative, and having to resort to these platforms and focus a large number of Internet surfers on them, they become more and more stubborn in introducing changes for the benefit of users.

Elon Musk is right that freedom of expression is in danger, but the main danger comes from the corporate monopoly.

It seems, then, that the struggle over Twitter's future is not really about freedom of expression, but rather about the political agenda that will eventually dominate the platform.

“Freedom of speech” is a deceptive attempt to frame what is ultimately a political struggle over platform orientation, and the outcome that conservatives hope to achieve is one in which conservative discourse is favored over the podium and liberal discourse is not.

And it's not just political rhetoric, as business leaders tend to emphasize "freedom of speech" in the broadest sense, when it comes to the kind of rhetoric that doesn't hurt their bottom line.

When it comes to organizing their workforce, a form of speech can serve as a check on their power and influence, and the tolerance for freedom of expression disappears.

Well, Elon Musk is right that freedom of expression is in danger, but the main danger comes from the corporate monopoly.

A small handful of companies, controlled by a smaller group of wealthy and powerful elites, have a stifling control over the tools and platforms on which the world depends to communicate and exchange ideas and messages.

Just as Jack Darcy, the former CEO of Twitter, who co-founded the social media company 16 years ago, put it in a tweet about Musk's potential takeover bid: "I don't think any individual or organization should own social media, or media companies." Generally, (4).

This applies to everyone, especially Elon Musk.

__________________________________

Sources: