Free speech vs. 'free speech absolutism'
It takes a mature society to understand (and manage) the difference.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Constitution of the United States, First Amendment
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than 1,000 bayonets.”
Napoleon Bonaparte
Greetings!
I have been cautiously following the Twitter-Musk saga these past couple of weeks and there is very little I can add at this point, considering that every person on the planet seems to have already issued an opinion, verdict or future prediction, and moved on to the abortion debate (I love America!). But, for what it’s worth, here is my simple advice to everyone: take a deep breath and buckle up, because humanity’s odyssey of truth has only just begun.
Enjoy.
The most puzzling aspect of Twitter, in my view, is the degree to which it commands and controls our entire information ecosystem given that it has only 430 million active users worldwide (of which roughly a 20% minority does most of the tweeting, including small armies of bots and fake accounts). For perspective, Facebook has nearly 3 billion users, while TikTok and Instagram have over 1 billion each (see graph below). In America, where about one third of tweeters reside, the app seems to have become an obsession, as well as an addiction. Scott Galloway, the irreverent marketing professor at NYU Stern School of Business, has dubbed its content “information crack” (and confessed needing his daily fix, too). A single tweet can effortlessly hijack the mainstream news cycle, sometimes for weeks. This is so bizarre, and yet it has become a normal feature of modern life. Almost like part of the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
I used Twitter for a few years, and certainly found some value in following people and institutions I thought had interesting things to share. But eventually the frequency and intensity of rubbish and nastiness floating around became overwhelming, so I decided to drop out of the platform in order to preserve my mental health. And yes, I noticed very clearly the addictive features of so-called engagement (Galloway refers to it as “enragement”, which I think is more accurate).
It seems to me that Twitter, in its present form, operates like a degenerative illness spreading through our society, akin to arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer or Alzheimer's - and the same might as well be true for social media in general. I am obviously not the only one who feels this way. Jonathan Haidt’s recent article, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid”, is a testament to that. Another piece from the same magazine, titled The New Puritans, written by Anne Applebaum, drew comparisons between ‘cancel culture’ and the guillotine: “The interaction between the angry mob and the illiberal bureaucracy engenders a thirst for blood, for sacrifices to be offered to the pious and unforgiving gods of outrage.” Sam Harris also sounded the alarm during one of his most recent podcast interviews: “It’s not even straightforward to say that democracy or even civilization can survive contact with social media … that remains to be seen, given how divisive some of its effects are.”
Sadly, the negative effects are not limited to adults but children as well, and could significantly hinder the healthy development of an entire generation. In 2021, Frances Haugen, a product manager who worked for nearly two years on the civic misinformation team at Facebook, exposed thousands of pages of internal documents showing how much the company knew about the harms that it was causing to teenager girls, among other major issues. Her actions may have single-handedly forced Mark Zuckerberg to halt the launch of Instagram for kids under 13.
So why on earth would the richest man on earth, someone who is passionate about building amazing things and thinking big, want to ‘adopt’ this problem child? Well, it is pretty evident that he loves it. More importantly, he loves his 80+ million followers. Twitter has been instrumental in helping to build Elon Musk’s celebrity status, as well as his power brands, Tesla and SpaceX, and other promising enterprises such as StarLink and NeuraLink. It has enabled him to fight big PR and regulatory battles related to electric vehicles and reusable rockets (against all odds), and face off with industry titans, media moguls, government bureaucrats, and even famous astronauts who expressed skepticism towards his intergalactic ambitions. While Musk has many friends, he also has many detractors. Hence, the reactions to his acquisition of Twitter have ranged from the ridiculous to the sublime, and everything in between (according to one tech entrepreneur, “the discussion has been a largely anodyne and clueless collision of absolutist narratives”). Perhaps my favorite take of all was the satirical video clip by Babylon Bee, which portrays a company employee having an emotional breakdown after she learns who her new boss is.
Mandy attends a therapy session to help her cope with Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter.
Some have suggested that the conservative-leaning parody site’s indefinite suspension from Twitter in mid-March was the ultimate motivation for Musk to make his move. Perhaps. But I do not believe for a second that he acted on impulse alone. Nor do I believe that he has all the answers. He does, however, have a long-standing reputation for looking at probabilities and working to improve his chances of success in all of his endeavors. It is no secret that he holds libertarian ideals, and has been quite vocal about the dangers of America’s culture wars. In other words, he is as wary of the imminent threat of a complete social breakdown as he is passionate about pre-empting the potentially catastrophic outcomes of climate change. Moreover, he has a proven record of tackling problems that no one else knows how to solve. We can criticize him for many things, but it is hard to dismiss his tolerance for failure and capacity to persevere.
We have heard Musk describe himself as a “free speech absolutist”, which is presumably the main trigger for the moral panic we have witnessed across (what used to be) the liberal media. But we should all take into account that Musk’s success is largely predicated on his willingness to learn from mistakes and course correct when necessary. I would even argue that this is one of the core traits of his leadership style. Though it’s true that many of Musk’s own tweets appear childish, arrogant, contemptuous, or all of the above, nobody in their right mind would sincerely expect Musk to turn the “de facto public square” (as he calls it) into a no-rules-anything-goes wild west. Let’s give the man a little more credit, shall we?
In my estimation, the very architecture of Twitter presents a fascinating engineering challenge, and I would not be surprised if that is part of the appeal for Musk (the financial opportunity, on the other hand, seems more elusive). As is the case for many other communication platforms, Twitter’s business model relies on algorithmic rules and financial incentives that are not conducive to a healthy exchange of ideas - and it wasn’t conceived to achieve this goal in the first place. And needless to say, when it comes to de-platforming users, its conduct has been deeply inconsistent and hypocritical. Autocratic regimes and tyrants from around the world are free to utilize it as a tool for propaganda, harassment and intimidation, but tweeting “a man is not a woman” is considered hate speech, therefore a justifiable cause for suspension.
So what does the future look like?
Few people would disagree that misinformation is a big issue today, but the much bigger issue seems to be how misinformation gets appropriated and weaponized in order to serve the interests of certain groups or individuals. Who gets to decide what counts as “mis-, dis- and malinformation” (MDM), a.k.a. “fake news”? What gets to be labeled as such, and according to what parameters? How do we ensure that the truth survives when censorship directives are abused?
At the same time as Musk voiced his intentions regarding Twitter, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created a Disinformation Governance Board, the vague and nebulous mission of which is as painful to justify as it is easy to ridicule. One only has to examine the track record of the person who was chosen to oversee it. For now, comparisons with Orwell’s Ministry of Truth may be overblown (we’ll see), but it’s hard to overlook the fact that the Biden administration didn’t even bother to pick someone for the role who is known for their objectivity, neutrality and moderation (qualities which, anyone would think, are essential for discerning between fake and real). It did exactly the opposite, thus making it plainly evident that the initiative is meant to protect the incumbent party and advance a political agenda. We should take a moment to reflect on how someone like Donald Trump, famous for his open disdain for the free press, would utilize this government unit to his advantage, were he to make a comeback.
On April 23rd the European Union announced that it had agreed on the outline of a new Digital Services Act, which will oblige social networks to police speech on their platforms more closely (but also offer a process for users to complain if they disagree with moderation decisions). Britain is working towards an even stricter Online Safety Bill, which, in addition to imposing new rules for dealing with illegal content, seeks to compel major online platforms to address specific categories of content in their terms and conditions, such as material that encourages self-harm or eating disorders. Governments in several other countries are also trying to grapple with the issue in one way or another.
As on several other fronts, such as digital currency, an epic battle seems to be unfolding between centralized control versus decentralized networks. We have entered a new chapter in the maturation of the internet and the human species. Hopefully we can strike a healthy new equilibrium.
Here’s a handful articles that I think present a worthy perspective on the topic:
Musk and Moderation, by Jim Rutt (Quillette)
Musk’s Free Speech Crusade, by Corbin K. Barthold (City Journal)
Elon Musk wants to Re-engineer the “Public Square”, by The Economist
The Age of Attention Politics, by Mary Harrington (UnHerd)
And finally, Bill Maher’s proposed solution: just like the best strategy when dealing with germs and viruses is to build a stronger immune system, the best defense against misinformation is to “develop a better bullshit detector!”.
FLICK OF THE WEEK: In this documentary film, tech experts from Silicon Valley sound the alarm on the manipulative nature and dangerous impact of social networks. The Social Dilemma provides a unique insight into how we are training algorithms to train' us, in a never-ending-attention-grabbing feedback loop that grows exponentially every minute. Who benefits?
The Dissident is an intimate portrait of a man who sacrificed everything for freedom of speech. The documentary follows the sinister assassination plot against Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia's concerted effort to manipulate the international narrative and the chilling role of social media in threatening anyone who thinks they can criticize the ‘homeland’.