The Asian Voice
Twitterdom with a new king should worry us all: Daily Star contributor
The writer says the role of social media for free expression is crucial in general, but especially important in countries where democracy is weakening.
Kamal Ahmed
DHAKA (THE DAILY STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist and the world's richest man, is the new king of Twitterdom.
His takeover of Twitter may have provided the company a much-needed new direction of exploring uncharted adventures, as its founder Jack Dorsey says, "Solving for the problem of it being a company, however, Elon is the singular solution I trust." The reason for using "however" by Dorsey in his tweet was in his words, "In principle, I don't believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company."
The way Musk, Twitter's top troll, bullied the management of the company and bought it indicates that the platform may not remain a space for public good as it becomes a private property. Here's a reminder about the acquisition of Twitter that he said, "this is not about economics, this is about power and influence."
With 86.1 million followers, Elon Musk is the top Twitterati, but he has also courted controversy by taunting others on the Twittersphere. Musk has been described as a troll by none other than a former insider of the company, Twitter's former head of news and currently the executive director of the Aspen Institute, Vivian Schiller.
And there's no dearth of examples. The New York Times reported that before his pivotal meeting with the Twitter's board, Mr Musk tweeted in which he made fun of Bill Gates for taking a short position on Tesla. His tweeting habit does not give much confidence in his post-takeover tweet that he hopes his "worst critics remain on Twitter."
The way the Tesla boss bought Twitter was also quite unconventional. He first wanted to know how much it would cost for buying by firing a tweet. Then he acquired more than nine percent of the shares, but discounted speculations of taking a seat on the board or interfering in running the business.
But within days, he made a new enticing offer through a tweet to buy the whole company, and the deal was done at an unprecedented speed. His critics, therefore, have every reason to argue that Musk is desperate to gain more power, and promotion of free speech is a mere facade.
Why does the Twitter takeover by Elon Musk matter for anyone in Bangladesh, when it has a tiny audience of about 750,000, whereas Facebook has a whopping 44.5 million users?
Social media platforms worldwide have been increasingly coming under scrutiny-mainly owing to its power of democratisation, but also for its toxicity. The role of social media for free expression is crucial in general, but especially important in countries where democracy is weakening or rulers are becoming autocrats.
Therefore, prospects of more freedom of expression or free speech should be a very welcoming development. If any one of the existing social media platforms becomes more democratic, then there's bound to be some positive impact on the rest.
And in terms of social influence, Twitter with more than 300 million users enjoys a certain edge over Facebook or Instagram, despite those having far larger subscriber numbers. It's due to the nature of the content, which is more news-oriented than personal and family affairs and networking.
But the scary prospect is its potential toxicity, where individuals could face an endless torrent of abuse based on their skin colour, faith, gender, political ideology, and so on.
Vivian Schiller told BBC's Radio 4 on Monday (April 25) that about two weeks ago, when asked how he would make the platform more free speech-friendly, Mr Musk could not give a clear answer. Musk's declaration, so far, is that he wants to see more "free speech" and less moderation. Many right-wing forces, like Trumpian Republicans in the US, who have long been complaining that Twitter's moderation policies favour the freedom of speech of left-leaning viewpoints, rejoiced.
According to Ms Schiller, this moderation is an art without which this public space is ungovernable. She also admitted that the Twitter management had not always had it right. The most glaring example in the US of Twitter being used to incite violence was the Jan 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill by Trump supporters, fuelled by conspiracy theories that led to the permanent ban of the outgoing president on Twitter. In India, presumably the largest democracy in the world, we have seen how religious hate preaching on Twitter has been spreading communal division and violence. It, therefore, makes Elon Musk's proposition of unbound free speech a serious cause for concern as it could amplify disinformation too.
There is no doubt that we all love freedom of expression and hate censorship, but not without restraints on the spread of hate and violence. Some of his memorable tweets include those against Covid-19 lock-down bolstering conspiracy theorists, extending support to Canadian truckers' disruptive sit-in protest, and violating Securities and Exchange Commission directives that led to wiping out of US$14 billion (S$19.4 billion) in a minute from the share market. Repeating such erratic behaviour now will no longer make him accountable to anyone, other than expensive private legal actions.
One thing that encourages most of us is that Elon Musk has promised to bring transparency in Twitter's algorithm, making the metrics of populism and support visible, and cracking down on bots. If it happens, then ghost followers of many popular but controversial figures will disappear.
In India, Twitter's third top market, political observers have begun speculating that the IT cells of major political parties will be folding as they are accused of maintaining bots and troll armies. However, Musk could have brought in such transparency without taking it out from the public control, as he had the opportunity to take up a seat on the company board with the single largest holding of its shares.
Many observers believe that the US$44 billion takeover will push politicians and regulators around the world to bring in new and stringent rules on social networks and force them to take more responsibility for the content they carry, issuing steep fines for non-compliance on material that incites violence, is abusive or classifies as hate speech, among other things.
In the US Congress, before Twitter's takeover, it was the Republicans who were pushing for taking on Big Tech companies, and now Democrats have started gearing up for a fight.
Musk's Twitter purchase puts moral champion in crosshairsTwitterdom with a new king should worry us all: Daily Star contributor
The writer says the role of social media for free expression is crucial in general, but especially important in countries where democracy is weakening.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk at the E3 gaming convention in Los Angeles on June 13, 2019.
PHOTO: REUTERS
Kamal Ahmed
DHAKA (THE DAILY STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist and the world's richest man, is the new king of Twitterdom.
His takeover of Twitter may have provided the company a much-needed new direction of exploring uncharted adventures, as its founder Jack Dorsey says, "Solving for the problem of it being a company, however, Elon is the singular solution I trust." The reason for using "however" by Dorsey in his tweet was in his words, "In principle, I don't believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company."
The way Musk, Twitter's top troll, bullied the management of the company and bought it indicates that the platform may not remain a space for public good as it becomes a private property. Here's a reminder about the acquisition of Twitter that he said, "this is not about economics, this is about power and influence."
With 86.1 million followers, Elon Musk is the top Twitterati, but he has also courted controversy by taunting others on the Twittersphere. Musk has been described as a troll by none other than a former insider of the company, Twitter's former head of news and currently the executive director of the Aspen Institute, Vivian Schiller.
And there's no dearth of examples. The New York Times reported that before his pivotal meeting with the Twitter's board, Mr Musk tweeted in which he made fun of Bill Gates for taking a short position on Tesla. His tweeting habit does not give much confidence in his post-takeover tweet that he hopes his "worst critics remain on Twitter."
The way the Tesla boss bought Twitter was also quite unconventional. He first wanted to know how much it would cost for buying by firing a tweet. Then he acquired more than nine percent of the shares, but discounted speculations of taking a seat on the board or interfering in running the business.
But within days, he made a new enticing offer through a tweet to buy the whole company, and the deal was done at an unprecedented speed. His critics, therefore, have every reason to argue that Musk is desperate to gain more power, and promotion of free speech is a mere facade.
Why does the Twitter takeover by Elon Musk matter for anyone in Bangladesh, when it has a tiny audience of about 750,000, whereas Facebook has a whopping 44.5 million users?
Social media platforms worldwide have been increasingly coming under scrutiny-mainly owing to its power of democratisation, but also for its toxicity. The role of social media for free expression is crucial in general, but especially important in countries where democracy is weakening or rulers are becoming autocrats.
Therefore, prospects of more freedom of expression or free speech should be a very welcoming development. If any one of the existing social media platforms becomes more democratic, then there's bound to be some positive impact on the rest.
And in terms of social influence, Twitter with more than 300 million users enjoys a certain edge over Facebook or Instagram, despite those having far larger subscriber numbers. It's due to the nature of the content, which is more news-oriented than personal and family affairs and networking.
But the scary prospect is its potential toxicity, where individuals could face an endless torrent of abuse based on their skin colour, faith, gender, political ideology, and so on.
Vivian Schiller told BBC's Radio 4 on Monday (April 25) that about two weeks ago, when asked how he would make the platform more free speech-friendly, Mr Musk could not give a clear answer. Musk's declaration, so far, is that he wants to see more "free speech" and less moderation. Many right-wing forces, like Trumpian Republicans in the US, who have long been complaining that Twitter's moderation policies favour the freedom of speech of left-leaning viewpoints, rejoiced.
According to Ms Schiller, this moderation is an art without which this public space is ungovernable. She also admitted that the Twitter management had not always had it right. The most glaring example in the US of Twitter being used to incite violence was the Jan 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill by Trump supporters, fuelled by conspiracy theories that led to the permanent ban of the outgoing president on Twitter. In India, presumably the largest democracy in the world, we have seen how religious hate preaching on Twitter has been spreading communal division and violence. It, therefore, makes Elon Musk's proposition of unbound free speech a serious cause for concern as it could amplify disinformation too.
There is no doubt that we all love freedom of expression and hate censorship, but not without restraints on the spread of hate and violence. Some of his memorable tweets include those against Covid-19 lock-down bolstering conspiracy theorists, extending support to Canadian truckers' disruptive sit-in protest, and violating Securities and Exchange Commission directives that led to wiping out of US$14 billion (S$19.4 billion) in a minute from the share market. Repeating such erratic behaviour now will no longer make him accountable to anyone, other than expensive private legal actions.
One thing that encourages most of us is that Elon Musk has promised to bring transparency in Twitter's algorithm, making the metrics of populism and support visible, and cracking down on bots. If it happens, then ghost followers of many popular but controversial figures will disappear.
In India, Twitter's third top market, political observers have begun speculating that the IT cells of major political parties will be folding as they are accused of maintaining bots and troll armies. However, Musk could have brought in such transparency without taking it out from the public control, as he had the opportunity to take up a seat on the company board with the single largest holding of its shares.
Many observers believe that the US$44 billion takeover will push politicians and regulators around the world to bring in new and stringent rules on social networks and force them to take more responsibility for the content they carry, issuing steep fines for non-compliance on material that incites violence, is abusive or classifies as hate speech, among other things.
In the US Congress, before Twitter's takeover, it was the Republicans who were pushing for taking on Big Tech companies, and now Democrats have started gearing up for a fight.
The writer is an independent journalist and writes from London. The Daily Star is a member of The Straits Times media partner Asia News Network, an alliance of 23 news media organisations
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Elon Musk's deal for Twitter includes a $1.4 billion break-up fee
Elon Musk's deal for Twitter includes a $1.4 billion break-up fee
.
2022/4/27
© Agence France-Presse
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has vowed to be a free speech absolutist when he takes control of the global messaging platform
San Francisco (AFP) - The fate of Twitter's top attorney, deemed a moral champion of the platform, was in doubt Wednesday after Elon Musk tweeted displeasure with content moderation she had carried out.
Musk, the world's richest man, has vowed to be a free speech absolutist when he takes control of the global messaging platform as part of a $44 billion deal.
The lawyer, Vijaya Gadde, has led efforts to battle bullying and posts that could lead to real-world harm such as the attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former US president Donald Trump.
She was also involved in decisions such as removing political advertising from Twitter, and banning Trump from the platform for instigating the January 6 attack.
Musk on Tuesday criticized Gadde's role in taking down a New York Post story about the overseas business dealings of President Joe Biden's son Hunter ahead of the 2020 election.
The billionaire said that banning the story was "incredibly inappropriate" in a tweet responding to another user's post that included a Politico article detailing how Gadde had cried during a meeting about the Musk takeover.
Musk went on to retweet a meme featuring Gadde and accusing Twitter of having a "left-wing bias", prompting former Twitter chief Dick Costolo to fire off a reply asking what he was trying to accomplish.
"You're making an executive at the company you just bought the target of harassment and threats," Costolo said in the tweeted reply to Musk.
-Tweet clause -
The deal Musk signed to buy Twitter comes with a clause saying he can tweet about the merger as long as the posts "do not disparage the company or any of its representatives."
Women's rights group UltraViolet said Musk's tweets aimed at Gadde are "proof positive that his leadership of the company will open the floodgates of harassment and abuse."
"The fact that not even one day after the deal was announced, Musk was already breaking the terms of his agreement with Twitter to explicitly single out and encourage harassment against one of Twitter’s top employees, is all you need to know about his intentions," said the organization's spokesperson, Bridget Todd.
Twitter chief Parag Agrawal defended his team in tweets of his own on Wednesday, endorsing a post that praised its lawyers as among the most aggressive in going to court to protect free speech.
"I took this job to change Twitter for the better, course correct where we need to, and strengthen the service," Agrawal tweeted.
"Proud of our people who continue to do the work with focus and urgency despite the noise."
San Francisco (AFP) - The fate of Twitter's top attorney, deemed a moral champion of the platform, was in doubt Wednesday after Elon Musk tweeted displeasure with content moderation she had carried out.
Musk, the world's richest man, has vowed to be a free speech absolutist when he takes control of the global messaging platform as part of a $44 billion deal.
The lawyer, Vijaya Gadde, has led efforts to battle bullying and posts that could lead to real-world harm such as the attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former US president Donald Trump.
She was also involved in decisions such as removing political advertising from Twitter, and banning Trump from the platform for instigating the January 6 attack.
Musk on Tuesday criticized Gadde's role in taking down a New York Post story about the overseas business dealings of President Joe Biden's son Hunter ahead of the 2020 election.
The billionaire said that banning the story was "incredibly inappropriate" in a tweet responding to another user's post that included a Politico article detailing how Gadde had cried during a meeting about the Musk takeover.
Musk went on to retweet a meme featuring Gadde and accusing Twitter of having a "left-wing bias", prompting former Twitter chief Dick Costolo to fire off a reply asking what he was trying to accomplish.
"You're making an executive at the company you just bought the target of harassment and threats," Costolo said in the tweeted reply to Musk.
-Tweet clause -
The deal Musk signed to buy Twitter comes with a clause saying he can tweet about the merger as long as the posts "do not disparage the company or any of its representatives."
Women's rights group UltraViolet said Musk's tweets aimed at Gadde are "proof positive that his leadership of the company will open the floodgates of harassment and abuse."
"The fact that not even one day after the deal was announced, Musk was already breaking the terms of his agreement with Twitter to explicitly single out and encourage harassment against one of Twitter’s top employees, is all you need to know about his intentions," said the organization's spokesperson, Bridget Todd.
Twitter chief Parag Agrawal defended his team in tweets of his own on Wednesday, endorsing a post that praised its lawyers as among the most aggressive in going to court to protect free speech.
"I took this job to change Twitter for the better, course correct where we need to, and strengthen the service," Agrawal tweeted.
"Proud of our people who continue to do the work with focus and urgency despite the noise."
Users taking flight?
In a further sign Musk may do some housecleaning, he also responded to online criticism of another Twitter lawyer, stating that the individual had acted in a prior job at the FBI in a way that "sounds pretty bad."
Musk has said he wants to increase trust in Twitter, which he sees as a digital town square for free speech and debate.
Key figures on the American left, including former president Barack Obama, have shed thousands of followers since Musk's planned purchase of Twitter emerged, as users appeared to be following through on promises to leave the platform. Numbers have soared, meanwhile, for right-wing politicians.
Twitter co-founder and former chief executive Jack Dorsey has tweeted his support for Musk taking the company private, saying that his goal of creating a "maximally trusted and broadly inclusive" platform is the right one.
"In principle, I don't believe anyone should own or run Twitter," Dorsey said in a string of tweets.
"It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company."
Musk’s ‘free speech’ push for Twitter: Repeating history?
By BARBARA ORTUTAY and AMANDA SEITZ
April 26, 2022
The Twitter page of Elon Musk is seen on the screen of a computer in Sausalito, Calif., on Monday, April 25, 2022. On Monday, Musk reached an agreement to buy Twitter for about $44 billion. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is spending $44 billion to acquire Twitter with the stated aim of turning it into a haven for “free speech.” There’s just one problem: The social platform has been down this road before, and it didn’t end well.
A decade ago, a Twitter executive dubbed the company “the free speech wing of the free speech party” to underscore its commitment to untrammeled freedom of expression. Subsequent events put that moniker to the test, as repressive regimes cracked down on Twitter users, particularly in the wake of the short-lived “Arab Spring” demonstrations. In the U.S., a visceral 2014 article by journalist Amanda Hess exposed the incessant, vile harassment many women faced just for posting on Twitter or other online forums.
Over the subsequent years, Twitter learned a few things about the consequences of running a largely unmoderated social platform — one of the most important being that companies generally don’t want their ads running against violent threats, hate speech that bleeds into incitement, and misinformation that aims to tip elections or undermine public health.
“With Musk, his posturing of free speech — just leave everything up — that would be bad in and of itself,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University. “If you stop moderating with automated systems and human reviews, a site like Twitter, in the space of a short period of time, you would have a cesspool.”
Google, Barrett pointed out, quickly learned this lesson the hard way when major companies like Toyota and Anheuser-Busch yanked their ads after they ran ahead of YouTube videos produced by extremists in 2015.
Once it was clear just how unhealthy the conversation had gotten, Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey spent years trying to improve what he called the “health” of the conversation on the platform.
The company was an early adopter of the “report abuse” button after U.K. member of parliament Stella Creasy received a barrage of rape and death threats on the platform. The online abuse was the result of a seemingly positive tweet in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who successfully advocated for novelist Jane Austen to appear on a British banknote. Creasy’s online harasser was sent to prison for 18 weeks.
Twitter has continued to craft rules and invested in staff and technology that detect violent threats, harassment and misinformation that violates its policies. After evidence emerged that Russia used their platforms to try to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, social media companies also stepped up their efforts against political misinformation.
The big question now is how far Musk, who describes himself as a “free-speech absolutist,” wants to ratchet back these systems — and whether users and advertisers will stick around if he does.
Even now, Americans say they’re more likely to be harassed on social media than any other online forum, with women, people of color and LGBTQ users reporting a disproportionate amount of that abuse. Roughly 80% of users believe the companies are still doing only a “fair or poor” job of handling that harassment, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults last year.
Meanwhile, terms like “censorship” and “free speech” have turned into political rallying cries for conservatives, frustrated by seeing right-leaning commentators and high-profile Republican officials booted off Facebook and Twitter for violating their rules.
Musk appeared to criticize Twitter’s permanent ban of President Donald Trump last year for messages that the tech company said helped incite the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last year.
“A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech,” Musk tweeted days after Trump was banned from both Facebook and Twitter.
Trump’s allies, including his son Donald Trump Jr., have even pleaded for Musk to buy out the company.
“If Elon Musk can privately send people into space I’m sure he can design a social network that isn’t biased,” Trump Jr. said in the caption of a video posted to Instagram last April.
Kirsten Martin, a professor of technology ethics at the University of Notre Dame, said Twitter has consistently worked at being a “responsible” social media company through its moderation system, its hires in the area of machine learning ethics and in whom they allow to do research on the platform. The fact that Musk wants to change that, she added, suggests that he’s focused on “irresponsible social media.”
Twitter declined to comment for this story. A representative for Musk did not immediately respond to a message for comment.
New social media apps targeted at conservatives, including Trump’s Truth Social, haven’t come remotely close to matching the success of Facebook or Twitter. That’s partly because Republican politicians, politicians and causes already draw large audiences on existing, and much better established, platforms.
It’s also partly due to floods of inflammatory, false or violent posts. Last year, for example, right-wing social media site Parler was nearly wiped off the internet when it became evident that rioters had used the app to promote violent messages and organize the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol. Apple and Google barred its app from their online stores, while Amazon stopped providing web-hosting services for the site.
Musk himself regularly blocks social media users who have criticized him or his company and sometimes bullies reporters who have written critical articles about him or Tesla. He regularly tweets at reporters who write about his company, sometimes mischaracterizing their work as “false” or “misleading.”
His popular tweets typically send a swarm of his social media fans directly to the accounts of the reporters to harass them for hours or days.
“I only block people as a direct insult,” Musk tweeted in 2020, responding to a tweet from a reporter.
Evan Greer, a political activist with Fight for the Future, said Musk’s lack of experience in moderating an influential social media platform will be a problem if he successfully takes over the company.
“If we want to protect free speech online, then we can’t live in a world where the richest person on Earth can just purchase a platform that millions of people depend on and then change the rules to his liking,” Greer said.
The Twitter page of Elon Musk is seen on the screen of a computer in Sausalito, Calif., on Monday, April 25, 2022. On Monday, Musk reached an agreement to buy Twitter for about $44 billion. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is spending $44 billion to acquire Twitter with the stated aim of turning it into a haven for “free speech.” There’s just one problem: The social platform has been down this road before, and it didn’t end well.
A decade ago, a Twitter executive dubbed the company “the free speech wing of the free speech party” to underscore its commitment to untrammeled freedom of expression. Subsequent events put that moniker to the test, as repressive regimes cracked down on Twitter users, particularly in the wake of the short-lived “Arab Spring” demonstrations. In the U.S., a visceral 2014 article by journalist Amanda Hess exposed the incessant, vile harassment many women faced just for posting on Twitter or other online forums.
Over the subsequent years, Twitter learned a few things about the consequences of running a largely unmoderated social platform — one of the most important being that companies generally don’t want their ads running against violent threats, hate speech that bleeds into incitement, and misinformation that aims to tip elections or undermine public health.
“With Musk, his posturing of free speech — just leave everything up — that would be bad in and of itself,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University. “If you stop moderating with automated systems and human reviews, a site like Twitter, in the space of a short period of time, you would have a cesspool.”
Google, Barrett pointed out, quickly learned this lesson the hard way when major companies like Toyota and Anheuser-Busch yanked their ads after they ran ahead of YouTube videos produced by extremists in 2015.
Once it was clear just how unhealthy the conversation had gotten, Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey spent years trying to improve what he called the “health” of the conversation on the platform.
The company was an early adopter of the “report abuse” button after U.K. member of parliament Stella Creasy received a barrage of rape and death threats on the platform. The online abuse was the result of a seemingly positive tweet in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, who successfully advocated for novelist Jane Austen to appear on a British banknote. Creasy’s online harasser was sent to prison for 18 weeks.
Twitter has continued to craft rules and invested in staff and technology that detect violent threats, harassment and misinformation that violates its policies. After evidence emerged that Russia used their platforms to try to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, social media companies also stepped up their efforts against political misinformation.
The big question now is how far Musk, who describes himself as a “free-speech absolutist,” wants to ratchet back these systems — and whether users and advertisers will stick around if he does.
Even now, Americans say they’re more likely to be harassed on social media than any other online forum, with women, people of color and LGBTQ users reporting a disproportionate amount of that abuse. Roughly 80% of users believe the companies are still doing only a “fair or poor” job of handling that harassment, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults last year.
Meanwhile, terms like “censorship” and “free speech” have turned into political rallying cries for conservatives, frustrated by seeing right-leaning commentators and high-profile Republican officials booted off Facebook and Twitter for violating their rules.
Musk appeared to criticize Twitter’s permanent ban of President Donald Trump last year for messages that the tech company said helped incite the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last year.
“A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech,” Musk tweeted days after Trump was banned from both Facebook and Twitter.
Trump’s allies, including his son Donald Trump Jr., have even pleaded for Musk to buy out the company.
“If Elon Musk can privately send people into space I’m sure he can design a social network that isn’t biased,” Trump Jr. said in the caption of a video posted to Instagram last April.
Kirsten Martin, a professor of technology ethics at the University of Notre Dame, said Twitter has consistently worked at being a “responsible” social media company through its moderation system, its hires in the area of machine learning ethics and in whom they allow to do research on the platform. The fact that Musk wants to change that, she added, suggests that he’s focused on “irresponsible social media.”
Twitter declined to comment for this story. A representative for Musk did not immediately respond to a message for comment.
New social media apps targeted at conservatives, including Trump’s Truth Social, haven’t come remotely close to matching the success of Facebook or Twitter. That’s partly because Republican politicians, politicians and causes already draw large audiences on existing, and much better established, platforms.
It’s also partly due to floods of inflammatory, false or violent posts. Last year, for example, right-wing social media site Parler was nearly wiped off the internet when it became evident that rioters had used the app to promote violent messages and organize the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol. Apple and Google barred its app from their online stores, while Amazon stopped providing web-hosting services for the site.
Musk himself regularly blocks social media users who have criticized him or his company and sometimes bullies reporters who have written critical articles about him or Tesla. He regularly tweets at reporters who write about his company, sometimes mischaracterizing their work as “false” or “misleading.”
His popular tweets typically send a swarm of his social media fans directly to the accounts of the reporters to harass them for hours or days.
“I only block people as a direct insult,” Musk tweeted in 2020, responding to a tweet from a reporter.
Evan Greer, a political activist with Fight for the Future, said Musk’s lack of experience in moderating an influential social media platform will be a problem if he successfully takes over the company.
“If we want to protect free speech online, then we can’t live in a world where the richest person on Earth can just purchase a platform that millions of people depend on and then change the rules to his liking,” Greer said.
No comments:
Post a Comment