Elon Musk is Exactly Why I Don't Want Twitter Heavily Curating Content
When I said "no-one should do this", I meant this guy
Why have principles? Obviously, the optimal situation is: “There are strict limitations on what you can do, but I can do whatever I want.” The meek little case for principles was famously made by the tiny Greek isle of Melos, who — when threatened by more-powerful Athens — argued that the Athenians should chillax (that’s a rough translation). They believed that there should be a “no wiping people out” rule followed by everyone, and pointed out that one day, Athens might be the ones begging for survival. The Athenians responded with whatever’s Greek for “not bloody likely” and killed or enslaved the Melians. That is why — even by the standards of dead civilizations — the Melians are deader than most.
Progressives have long called for more aggressive curation of what can be said on social media. Their demands include the removal of “hate speech” — defined as any statement that wouldn’t elicit aggressive head-nods at a teach-in at Antioch College — and the deletion of false information about Covid, including false information that turns out to be true. The progressive argument got some purchase within Twitter during the Jack Dorsey era, though people like me questioned the wisdom of giving such a large amount of power to a guy who dresses like a rap-rock version of James A. Garfield.
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was a direct response to Dorsey’s concessions to progressive demands. Musk preached the gospel of free speech, vowing to turn Twitter into a “public square”, though presumably with less flinging of manure at women of low morals. Musk’s fanboys — and they do seem to all be boys — cheered the change. I remained wary of how much power Twitter has over speech. There are so many marginal cases in content moderation that a highly-active posture seems likely to lead to abuse, so my opinion is that the best approach to content moderation is “tread lightly”.
It’s hard to imagine things going much worse than they’ve gone. Musk has proved to be Three Stooges-level inept, making sudden and seemingly poorly-considered changes that appear to have tanked Twitter’s value. His commitment to free speech turned out to be a millimeter deep; at one point, he banned journalists using thin pretexts and the exact language used by his progressive opponents. (The journalists were later reinstated.) Last week, Musk responded to a Twitter-like feature from Substack (full disclosure: You’re on Substack right now) by disabling retweets or likes of Substack links. Basically: He tried to kneecap a competitor. Musk appears to have reversed that decision, which is good, but the episode suggests that Twitter is being run by an impulsive autocrat who shoots from the hip, possibly while on acid.
Part of me wants to say “I told you so”. And that part of me is my entire body: I told you so. Allow me to paraphrase J. Walter Weatherman: That’s why you don’t let a social media platform get heavily involved in speech. The silver lining here has been watching people who previously thought a Twitter Council Of The Wise should curtail speech decide that maybe that’s a bad idea now that Twitter is run by a Ron DeSantis-loving ex-liberal reactionary. Normally, vivid illustrations of how principles protect everyone don’t arrive so quickly; the Melians were not, in fact, suddenly gifted a fleet of nuclear submarines that allowed them to say “What was that you were saying about the strong and the weak, Athens?”
All of the arguments that progressives use to shut down speech could be used in defense of Musk. “None of this is a First Amendment issue.” Yes, this is true, because the First Amendment only covers government regulation of speech, but it doesn’t follow that all other restrictions on speech are therefore awesome and just. “There have to be some restrictions on speech.” That’s also true: You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater (though you can yell “kill me now!” in a theater showing Dirty Grandpa, and I have exercised that right). “Some speech causes real-world harm.” I find Musk’s claims that he was “doxxed” weak; people gave general information about his presence in a public place, as if I had tweeted “the Dalai Lama is DOMINATING at Mavrix Laser Tag in Scottsdale!” Which I think would be noteworthy.
Twitter isn’t the only social media platform where free speech issues are a concern: Tik Tok is owned by Bytedance, a Chinese company that’s close to the CCP (there is no other type of Chinese company). This raises the prospect of the Chinese government limiting American access to content they don’t like, and remember: The Chinese government are DICKS. They’re most likely to censor pro-Taiwan sentiment or footage of protests in Hong Kong, but they might choose to limit access to classic Conan clips or videos of kittens sleeping in socks because they’re just a bunch of flaming assholes.
Social media companies aren’t like traditional media companies. To a large extent, they’re simply a bulletin board, a means of public communication filled with both useful information (e.g. “lost dog”) and stupid bullshit (e.g. “improv show tonight”). Because social media platforms thrive on network effects, there will always be a few behemoths with a large impact on our national dialogue; the stakes are higher than when we were arguing over column inches in the West Sheepshag Post-Gazette. Network effects also make large companies difficult to displace; it’s easy to start a Truth Social or Mastadon, but it’s hard to get people to use it, and that will remain true even when the sales pitch is something better than “a place where you can hang out with Trump and/or Adam Davidson.”
Which is to say: These companies have a lot of power. Our conversation about how social media companies should behave should recognize that they have a level of control over speech similar to the level of control that governments have often had. “They’re not covered by the First Amendment” is too often used as the first part of a sentence arguing for restricted speech, as in “they’re not covered by the First Amendment, so it’s fine that a powerful corporation throttled the account of a journalist who expressed unpopular opinions.” It think that’s dangerous; I think that’s celebrating the limits of one the constitution’s foundational provisions. We should be saying “Holy shit — they’re not covered by the First Amendment!!! And therefore we need strong norms demanding that social media companies respect basic principles of free speech.”
I feel like people who wanted Twitter to aggressively moderate content basically fell into the “benign dictator” trap. I understand the appeal of the benign dictator trap; Democracy ensures that governments will have a popular mandate, but it doesn’t ensure the government will be wise or even minimally competent. When the governmental dumpster fire is burning at full blaze, it’s tempting to consider handing power to one wise person who will cut through the bullshit. And what’s true for government is true for any institution; you might yearn for a singular powerful figure to head up your company, dance troupe, or Gymboree baby play group (because I’ve seen those things devolve into complete fucking chaos).
It’s understandable to feel that way about social media. It’s just so full of trash; it’s natural to see someone spouting, say, anti-vax nonsense, borderline-racist bile, or some brainless conspiracy theory and think “can’t someone shut this down?” And — because the First Amendment doesn’t apply — someone can shut it down. It is possible to empower someone to wade into highly-contentious debates and declare certain opinions out-of-bounds.
It’s possible; it’s just not wise. “Benign” is the word in “benign dictator” that draws people in; “dictator” is the word that makes it a trap. You can hand someone total power, and you might love the decisions they make today. But what if you don’t love the decisions they make tomorrow? Well, if that happens: tough shit. They don’t listen to you, or anybody — that was by design. They have total power to make decisions, and so will the person after them, and the person after them, and the person after them. If you don’t want a certain authority wielded against you, then it’s best to not create that authority in the first place.
The fact that a small number of social media companies have a large amount of influence on our national discussion is a problem. Passing laws about what private companies must and can’t do is tricky, so the first thing to do is to establish strong and consistent norms. I didn’t want Jack Dorsey making big decisions about what’s allowed on Twitter, I don’t want Elon Musk doing it, and I won’t want the next person to do it, either. I favor a light touch in all cases. Since Twitter is currently owned by a guy who is basically the worst case scenario personified, maybe more people will understand why I feel that way.
Uh oh, it's the dreaded inaccurate "you can't say 'fire' in a crowded theater" analogy!
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
I like small, actively-moderated communities. You don't need to worry so much about free speech principles when you can easily pick up and move somewhere else.
The big challenge of moderation, I think, isn't misinformation but rather harassment and spam. Misinformation harms society, but can be to a great extent counteracted with accurate information and open discussion. Harassment and spam make your platform worse. However, defining the boundaries of harassment and spam is just as difficult and polarising as defining the boundaries of misinformation.