The richest man in the world and owner in anticipation of Twitter signed a deal for the planned acquisition of $ 44 billion (35 35 billion) last week, confirming that he could tweet about the deal, if “such tweets do not underestimate the company or any of the representatives “. Hours later, however, the self-proclaimed “absolute freedom of speech” tweeted criticism of senior Twitter executives, including an interaction with a political podcast presenter who had named the company’s legal head, Vijaya Gadde, its “top supporter.” censorship ”on Twitter. Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s legal chief, fell victim to a stack triggered by a Musk tweet. Photo: Mike Blake / Reuters The inevitable consequence for Gadde was one of the gloomiest social media phenomena: a stack. The comments included calls for her to lose her job and, in a typical example of nasty digital exaggeration, statements that Gad would “go down in history as an awful person.” Announcing the deal to buy Twitter last week, Musk said: “Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy and Twitter is the digital square of the city where issues of vital importance to the future of humanity are being discussed.” Musk has a history of controversial tweets, but his post on Gadde has fueled concerns in some quarters about the idea of Tesla CEO’s freedom of speech. Will it have the cost of protecting Twitter users from abuse, cyberbullying and extremist content? “I think Musk’s conception of free expression is contradictory and silly,” said Gillian York, a freedom-speech activist and author of Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism. “Totalitarianism on a platform like Twitter fails to take into account the very real damage that Twitter can do as a global platform, for example used by malicious agents such as Isis and far-right extremists.” He adds that there is a difference between the idea of freedom of speech as it is embodied in standing on a platform at Speakers’ Corner in London and on the Internet, where you can “scream in a vacuum to billions of people”. He says: “Platforms like Twitter are a completely different animal and you talk about one’s ability to ruin someone’s life in an instant.” Musk’s conception of free expression is contradictory and silly Gillian York, author Gadde’s post sparked a wave of support and criticism of Musk from current and former officials. A group of female Twitter employees, under the guise of @TwitterWomen, posted “Twitter women are the best of us”, while former CEO of the platform, Dick Costolo, accused the billionaire of “being an executive in the company you just bought the target of harassment and threats “. There is also speculation that Musk will allow a return to the platform of banned figures, including former President Donald Trump, who has refused to return after his account was permanently suspended in January 2021. However, the Wall Street Journal reported this Weekend that Musk is “outraged” that Trump remains banned. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, a US-British campaign, said the resettlement of people like Trump, far-right expert Katie Hopkins and InfoWars founder Alex Jones would mean that Twitter’s security rules “no longer exist”. The deal, which is backed by the board but must be approved by shareholders, has also raised concerns about one person controlling such a large platform. Twitter is important, even though the majority of its 217 million daily users learn its news elsewhere. In Europe, only 9% of people use Twitter for news, rising to 12% in North America, 14% in the UK and 35% in Africa, according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at the University. of Oxford. But those people who use Twitter are the equivalent of influential politicians and media – journalists, commentators, celebrities and politicians. “The fact that many politicians, powerful people and experts are frequent users and that some journalists present what they say in their reports means that Twitter is clearly an important part of the way politics and the media agenda are shaped.” says Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. Director of RISJ. “In that sense, it is possible for a wealthy businessman to raise the same issues as wealthy individuals who control influential news outlets or other social media platforms. “It’s a political question how individual countries want to regulate such property.” Twitter headquarters in San Francisco. Photo: Amy Osborne / AFP / Getty Images The deal is not expected to be scrutinized by competition authorities in the US, but politicians are beginning to address the issue of Internet regulation and issues related to freedom of speech. Landmark laws are being introduced in the UK and EU and will have a direct impact on the shape of Musk town square. In another tweet after the agreement last week, Musk acknowledged that individual states’ perceptions of freedom of speech would outweigh his own. He wrote: “By the word ‘freedom of speech’, I simply mean that which conforms to the law. “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.” But the law – in the UK and the EU – is going to change. In the United Kingdom, the government is introducing the Internet Security Bill, which imposes a duty of care on technology companies to protect users from harmful content. Some of the content it covers is already banned from Twitter likes, especially posts that contain things that are criminal in the offline world, such as terrorist content or child sexual abuse content. But it will also require major platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok to deal with “legal but harmful” content – in other words, posts that fall below the crime threshold but can cause psychological or physical harm. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. for violations of the law. “Services operating in the United Kingdom are subject to UK regulations. Online platforms are no different from services in other areas. “Once enacted, Twitter should convince Ofcom that it is complying with its user protection duties,” said Maeve Walsh, a policy adviser who helped shape the regulatory framework behind the bill. At the same time, the EU is enforcing the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires major social media platforms to do more to tackle illegal content. This includes forcing users to tag such content “easily and efficiently” so that it can be removed quickly. “Twitter, even owned by Mr Musk, needs to soften its content to comply with EU rules. If it wants to do business in the EU, that’s the case,” said Christel Schaldemose, a Danish MEP and chief negotiator. for the DSA. In the US, content monitoring is an issue that has been hotly debated by lawmakers for years. While there is some bipartisan support for reform, the question of how and if platforms should be held accountable for the content posted on their websites remains controversial. By “freedom of speech” I mean simply that which conforms to the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less freedom of speech, they will ask the government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, exceeding the law is against the will of the people. – Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 26, 2022 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 currently relieves platforms of liability for content published by others. Both Trump and President Joe Biden have voiced support for an Article 230 reform, albeit for different reasons. Republicans have argued, largely without evidence, that right-wing voices are being censored, while Democrats say the platforms are harboring harmful content, misinformation and misinformation without consequences. However, activists say reforming or repealing Article 230 could do more harm than good: it could push companies to delete large suspension lanes, even if they are not harmful, for fear of breaking the law – perhaps in the process of denying oppressed groups their most powerful platforms. “Article 230 is a fundamental law for human rights and free expression worldwide,” said Evan Greer, director of the Digital Rights group Fight for the Future. “No matter what Musk wants to do, changing section 230 would make it even harder for platforms like Twitter to mitigate harmful content through a human rights framework and more likely for platforms to remove large strips of legitimate content to avoid litigation “. The deal to buy Twitter also includes a $ 1 billion cut-off fee, which could be paid by both parties, depending on the circumstances of the deal. As it becomes increasingly clear that the implementation of his vision for freedom of speech faces significant obstacles, Musk may see it as a reward worth paying.
