On Twitter – Why Free Speech Is Too Important to be Left in the Hands of Elon Musk

There is an old journalistic axiom, that if you are annoying the left and the right, you are doing something right.

Twitter may have thought it was at that sweet spot, since the medium enrages those who want the platform to ban preachers of hate speech, as well as those who have suddenly discovered the virtues of free speech and complain loudly when  standard-bearers – (most notably former US president Donald Trump) – are suspended from the medium. Liberals have been in a dilemma, trying to balance free speech with Twitter’s no-holds-barred conversations, where insults are frequent, personal attacks common, doxing to be expected, and misogyny, homophobia, and racist comments routinely go undetected, although the company is trying to combat hatred with policies against racism, personal attacks, and hateful conduct. Unfortunately, for many people, hate speech means the speech they hate, which may indeed be awful, and not necessarily the speech that might spread hate.

 

Such a deal would have serious consequences for free speech not because of Musk’s political orientation, but because it would place enormous power in the hands of a private individual; what appears to be a town square would, in fact, be one individual’s private property.

 

Enter Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a Twitter superstar. In the past, Musk has gotten into trouble over some of his tweets such as when he grandly claimed to take his company, Tesla, private, alarming stock market regulators. He is convinced Twitter is undervalued and should remain a town square, meaning there should be no attempts to regulate what’s said on the platform as that would represent a threat to free speech. A Twitter poll he created, unscientific though it was, echoed his views. Musk now wants to buy Twitter for more than $40 billion, which he says he has arranged, from lenders, and he may be close to a deal, with Twitter’s board considering his offer seriously.

Such a deal would have serious consequences for free speech not because of Musk’s political orientation, but because it would place enormous power in the hands of a private individual; what appears to be a town square would, in fact, be one individual’s private property.

This is not to suggest that Twitter has made an enormous success of providing fair and equal access to everyone. It is a work in progress. Nobody, not even its senior management, will assert they know everything that’s said on the medium. Nor do they agree with everything that’s said. It is only to be expected that many posts might violate some of the company’s terms of service. Twitter is trying; it consults with a wide range of experts drawn from around the world, representing different special interests, from different cultures and from differently-governed societies, to help frame rules to facilitate global conversation.

But it is impossible to keep up with the speed of dissemination on Twitter (as with anywhere else on the Internet), and what gets spread is not only information, but also disinformation and misinformation; not only facts, but also opinions; not only truth, but also lies. At nearly 500 million tweets daily, it is physically impossible for each to be vetted before it appears. Like other social media platforms, Twitter relies on S.230 of the Communication Decency Act, to argue that it is the carrier of data, not the owner, and therefore can’t be legally responsible for everything appearing on the platform.

 

Free speech is far too important to be left in the hands of influential town elders or one rich individual. Such a person, with enormous resources, can exert quasi-monopolistic power over what can be said online

 

And yet, Twitter terms of service include policies to eliminate child pornography, incitement of violence, misleading information, and harassment, among other topics. They aren’t always effective. The company also removes individuals who make unsubstantiated claims about the vaccine to fight the pandemic, as well as those who spread hate or incite violence. Musk sees that as censorship, failing to see the continuum found in some instances between online harassment and off-line violence. Should he gain control over the company, in the name of free speech, he would presumably overturn these policies that he might consider ‘woke.’

The record of governments in regulating freedom of expression is poor in almost every society, whether the government is authoritarian, holds regular elections, or has sound democratic norms. Surely, free speech is too important to be left in the hands of a government, runs the logic. And yet, societies that do offer substantial freedom of expression too have censorship by private providers – think of the raft of US school boards and other bodies have been able to ban hundreds of literary classics, because those works are said to violate loosely-defined community standards.

 

The assumption, that Musk wants Twitter to be ‘trusted’ and will permit a free-for-all on Twitter is naïve; the more outrageous the discourse on Twitter becomes, the more likely it is that advertisers will leave the platform.

 

Free speech is far too important to be left in the hands of influential town elders or one rich individual. Such a person, with enormous resources, can exert quasi-monopolistic power over what can be said online, and in Musk’s case, he isn’t driven by a desire to protect everyone’s free speech; he wants unrestrained speech for himself and those with whom he agrees.

The assumption, that Musk wants Twitter to be ‘trusted’ and will permit a free-for-all on Twitter is naïve; the more outrageous the discourse on Twitter becomes, the more likely it is that advertisers will leave the platform, creating a serious problem for Twitter to remain an attractive investment proposition. Twitter would begin to resemble the early bulletin boards on the internet, which went under the rubric ‘soc.culture.abc’ (where the ‘abc’ would be the topic of discussion) where conversations were unrestrained, abuse common, and they generated heat, not light, as more and more people began to leave those groups. A 21^st century version of that culture can hardly advance freedom of expression or information.

 

Letting Musk acquire a global platform he has done nothing to build, to turn it into an instrument that reflects his tastes, would consolidate monopoly power. Even the pro-free market Economist, which often supports libertarian ideas and dislikes regulation, has called Musk’s move as an example of capitalism gone rogue.

 

The fact is, he who owns the mike controls what’s said on the platform. Given Musk’s whimsical public pronouncements that have hurt his shareholders; the pointless battles he runs with his foes, real or imagined; and his own controversial views, his assertion that he would protect free speech on the platform defies credibility. He will no doubt permit skeptical and controversial voices to return to Twitter. He may also use the means at Twitter’s disposal, such as algorithmic manipulation to amplify some content, or to make it harder for certain tweets to appear on users’ time-lines, or shadow-banning (which Twitter denies) to reduce access to views he disagrees with. That is assuming he won’t ban them altogether.

Letting Musk acquire a global platform he has done nothing to build, to turn it into an instrument that reflects his tastes, would consolidate monopoly power. Even the pro-free market Economist, which often supports libertarian ideas and dislikes regulation, has called Musk’s move as an example of capitalism gone rogue. It would be nice if a competitive rival emerges, but relying on market forces to do their trick would also be simplistic, at least partly because the transaction costs of moving to another platform are high; people often stay with the familiar (although there are exceptions). The might of Google wasn’t able to lure Facebook users to its much-publicised social media platform, which was later abandoned.

 

Freedom of speech is important, but Twitter and others do control the freedom to reach. Musk’s interest in Twitter is not its business or technological potential, but is driven by his irritation with the way Twitter implements its policies.

 

A company’s job would be easier if international standards for free speech were more clearly-defined. But as they stand, the language protecting speech under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and successive reports of the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Opinion, have left sufficient ambiguity for governments, organisations, and societies to interpret the standards as they please, leading to cultural relativism.

As Vasuki Shastry argues, Twitter is now the global public space, and it is important to get it right. There should be scope for  creating governance models that draw on international law and standards, and require  respect for human rights –  including the freedom to speak as well as to safety and security from violence, by recognising the power imbalance in society. Social media companies claim to offer their platforms to everyone; they have a duty to ensure access to all voices, including the marginalized and discriminated against, and not let the strong silence the weak by speaking more frequently or louder.

Freedom of speech is important, but Twitter and others do control the freedom to reach. Musk’s interest in Twitter is not its business or technological potential, but is driven by his irritation with the way Twitter implements its policies.

 

Democracy and human rights are too valuable to be left in the hands of technology, visionary entrepreneurs, or wealthy investors who are intent on creating monopolies.

 

Realising the imbalance and its own frailties, Facebook has embarked on an interesting experiment, by having an oversight board to which users can appeal, if they find Facebook’s decisions on content governance to be arbitrary. It is a noteworthy development, and controversial too, and it is too soon to tell if it has been effective. Twitter is also developing its own governance models to ensure trust and safety (disclosure: IHRB is part of the temporary group as part of its content governance initiative), which may add to layers of bureaucracy, as the company intends to create a set of rules that can be applied fairly and evenly in a manner that isn’t arbitrary. As the ‘effectiveness criteria’ of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state under Principle 31, a grievance mechanism cannot be arbitrary, and needs to be ‘legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, source of continuous learning, and based on engagement and dialogue.’ Musk is a man of many talents, but one thing he can’t be accused of is predictability or consistency.

Democracy and human rights are too valuable to be left in the hands of technology, visionary entrepreneurs, or wealthy investors who are intent on creating monopolies. As Jonathan Haidt argues in the Atlantic preserving democracy is hard work. Many voices can produce cacophony and if the power imbalance is not recognized, the noise could hurt freedoms of many at the cost of expanding the reach of a few. His prescription is strengthening democratic institutions that can hold power to account, reforming social media so that people aren’t intimidated if they wish to speak in the ‘public square,’ preparing the next generation, by reinforcing values through education that promote civil discourse even when there are massive areas of disagreement.

No regulation is worse than having no regulations. And yet, any regulation of free speech will inevitably be imperfect. Perfection, however, is what we strive for, and it will appear elusive, but it should never become an enemy of good. Rather, as the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore said, our tireless striving should stretch our arms towards perfection.