“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the world, and I believe that freedom of speech is a social imperative for a functioning democracy,” wrote Tesla and SpaceX billionaire – who recently acquired percentage 9.2%. share on Twitter – in a deposit. “However, since I made my investment, I now realize that the company will neither thrive nor serve this social imperative in its current form. “Twitter must be turned into a private company.” It is not clear how this game will develop, but there is also a more fundamental question: what does Elon Musk think freedom of speech is and who threatens it? Free speech is the cornerstone of an open society, and with governments around the world looking at repression on Internet platforms, there is a complex interplay between different visions of what should be allowed on the Internet. But despite his sweeping statement, Musk’s eye seems almost entirely on the much smaller issue of Twitter’s internal rules. In 2011, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo claimed that Twitter belonged to the “freedom of speech party of the Freedom of Speech Party”, a phrase that has since been cited by critics of the platform’s moderation calls. In the context of that era, the controversy over freedom of speech mainly concerned Twitter’s relationship with governments. The platform won praise for allowing activists to organize under the threat of political repression in Egypt and other countries. Costolo boasted about his quarrel with the US government over WikiLeaks-related account data, which was under investigation following the leak of diplomatic telegrams. “The risk of civilization decreases as much as we can increase Twitter trust” In a TED interview with Chris Anderson on Thursday, Musk’s concerns were more vague – and they turned almost entirely to Twitter itself. Musk did not show much appetite for combating global speech restrictions – noting that “in my opinion, Twitter must comply with the laws of the country.” Instead, he set the stage for tweets that are “mysteriously promoted and demoted” by Twitter’s ranking algorithm, which Musk says should be made public. (Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has also envisioned a version with more transparent algorithmic recommendations.) “It’s very important that people have the reality and the perception that they can speak freely within the law,” Musk told Anderson. “I think in general, the cultural risk is reduced as much as we can increase Twitter’s confidence as a public platform.” Musk reflected a common assumption that Twitter is a “town square” that has become the primary judge of what people can say. But governments around the world still have a huge say in what is being said and how. In the years since Costolo’s commentary, the laws of cyberbullying have multiplied. Many countries have adopted “fake news” rules that are (theoretically) supposed to combat the spread of fake online information, and some have threatened to ban non-compliant platforms. European privacy rules have introduced a “right to be forgotten” that requires platforms to remove annoying information posted on the internet under certain conditions. India has enforced a strict legal regime for social media companies, requiring local offices to appoint government liaisons and, at one point, raid Twitter offices. Twitter is far from the last word on what people say on the internet Even within the US, which has some of the most tolerant speech laws in the world, Twitter moderators are not the only force at work. The platform has some of the most relaxed adult content standards for a large social network, but the 2018 FOSTA-SESTA law threatens companies’ legal protection if they allow sex-related content. U.S. copyright law enjoys a significant exception to the usual rules that protect platforms from legal liability, which has prompted Twitter to do things like remove stolen jokes. The way companies like Twitter interpret such rules has a huge impact on users’ livelihoods and creative freedoms. Major tech platforms do not just comply with US laws. also play a role in the lobby for news. Jack Dorsey has appeared before Congress several times during his tenure as CEO, during which he was asked about issues such as how lawmakers should change Article 230, one of the central pillars of online speech. Musk has not indicated what role a recent private Twitter may play in these discussions and it is not clear that he is interested. We also do not know how Musk’s Twitter version would interact with other digital gatekeepers. If Apple demanded that it stop accessing NSFW content via iOS, for example – something that prompted Discord and other services to do so – would Twitter play ball? No better equipped to protect freedom of speech, a Twitter owned by Musk may be in a weaker position than a public one. Musk’s involvement in many other industries – including telecommunications with Starlink, space travel with SpaceX and cars with Tesla – would give regulators and politicians extra leverage to push Twitter. This type of leverage has already been a powerful weapon against heavily vertically integrated companies such as Apple, which has complied with Chinese censorship and surveillance demands to avoid losing access to a huge market for its hardware. Musk companies have the extra wrinkle of often including government contracts and subsidies – the kind of deal that can jeopardize a high-profile moderation battle. A Twitter owned by Musk could be even more vulnerable to government pressure Twitter’s stance has never been as authoritarian as Costolo’s comment suggests. Even while he and other officials continued to use the phrase, they complied with French and German hate speech rhetoric by “retaining” neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic posts in those countries. The company promised to try to enforce the rules “closely and transparently”, but “we must abide by the laws of the countries in which we operate”, Costolo acknowledged after a French court ordered it to block hate tweets. If you want to make a profit as a global company, there is a limit to how many laws you can persistently defy – there is a reason that many anti-censorship tools are open source and non-commercial. But Costolo at least acknowledged that Twitter was interacting with a much larger world. My colleague Liz Lopato, meanwhile, has aptly framed Musk’s acquisition plans as a virtuoso Twitter troll trying to dominate his favorite game. And there is only one enemy that a troll is really afraid of: the mods.
