Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Elon Musk reached an agreement to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion on Monday, promising a more lenient touch to policing content on the social media platform.” AP News
Here’s our recent coverage of Elon Musk and Twitter. The Flip Side
The right celebrates Musk’s purchase and calls for Twitter to allow more speech and increase transparency.
“Twitter should not promise to protect ‘dignity,’ or to avoid ‘harm,’ or to uphold ‘equality.’ It should not vow to keep people ‘safe,’ or to outlaw ‘hatred,’ or to combat ‘misinformation.’ Hell, given the absurd hierarchies of immutable characteristics that progressivism has imposed, it should not base any rules on race, gender, or religion, either. Instead, it should focus on the specifics. ‘You may not publish another user’s physical address’ is a good rule. ‘You may not use Twitter in the commission of a crime, as determined by a court’ is a good rule. If certain words are to be verboten, Musk should list them…
“Sure, a Terms & Conditions page with 500 items on it would be a touch unwieldy, but it would ultimately be less of a problem than having five intrinsically vague statements that accord carte blanche to the spoiled children of Oberlin…
“Finally, Musk ought to dramatically increase transparency. At present, Twitter is an infuriating black hole for everyone except the famous and well-connected. If a user is banned from the service, he should be told exactly why. Before he is banned, he ought to be warned, told why he has been warned, and informed about the likely consequences of repeat behavior.”
Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review
“For those whose tweets get barred, there should be a clear and transparent appeals process. And nobody should be banned just for being a jerk. Threats? No. Doxing? Not allowed. Porn? Go elsewhere for that. But Donald Trump should be let back on. Whether something is ‘disinformation’ or ‘a threat to democracy’ ought not concern Twitter’s moderators, because what’s accurate will drive out the inaccurate over time…
“Musk understands that we need more, not less, engagement with disagreeable ideas. Remember when everyone agreed sunlight is the best disinfectant? Adherents of the world’s worst idea (communism) are allowed on Twitter. A great start! So should those who vouch for every other idiotic ideology. Twitter should be like a soapbox: it’s there for anyone to stand on and shout from. If you don’t like something, the mute button’s right there, folks. Vehement disputation is the American way. Apparently we need a South African to make that the Twitter way.”
Kyle Smith, New York Post
“Instead of giving any political faction the impression that it will like Twitter’s decisions, Musk should try to increase all Americans’ faith in Twitter’s capacity for sound decision-making. Many now perceive content moderation as an elite project—an attempt to exert gatekeeping control over social media. ‘Disinformation’ is what powerful journalists and intellectuals discuss in sober and self-important tones at conferences on ‘democracy.’…
“He should combat the notion that content moderation is something done by coastal liberal elites, for coastal liberal elites, to satisfy the sensibilities of coastal liberal elites…
“Under the current setup, ‘hate speech’ is turning by degrees into ‘opinions progressives find distasteful.’ Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar was recently asked if she thinks the statement ‘There are only two sexes’ should be banned from social media. Her response was an evasive word salad. (As Conor Friedersdorf notes, the answer should have been: ‘No, of course I don’t think [that]. We always want Americans to be freely able to discuss contested issues of our time.’)”
Corbin K. Barthold, City Journal
The left worries about Musk’s purchase and calls for Twitter to continue moderating content in order to protect marginalized voices.
The left worries about Musk’s purchase and calls for Twitter to continue moderating content in order to protect marginalized voices.
“What Musk is talking about reflects the same ideology on which social media companies like Twitter and Facebook were founded: Let anyone say what they want online. But in practice, nearly every major platform — and even more recent free speech absolutist ones like Parler, Gettr, and Trump’s own Truth Social — have put into place some rules against things like hate speech, harassment, or inappropriate content. That’s because if they don’t, these platforms tend to devolve into cesspools of hateful, negative, or spammy content that isn’t good for users or advertisers…
“For example, when trolls flood someone with targeted harassment, they can be exercising their free speech, but their intimidation tactics are also potentially discouraging that user from sharing their own viewpoints. ‘One of the things that we’ve seen on every single social platform since the invention of the internet is that some people’s free speech is deployed to try to prevent other people’s participation and assembly,’ said [Renee DiResta, a researcher at the Stanford Internet Observatory].”
Shirin Ghaffary, Vox
“The Twitter alternative Parler launched with limitations far odder than those that Twitter has now. The company’s first CEO, John Matze, forbade photos of poop and usernames with profanity in them, and specifically told users not to try to go by ‘CumDumpster.’ Still, those on the right hailed the platform as a victory for freedom. Meanwhile, on Truth Social, Donald Trump’s struggling new Twitter alternative, users can be banned for any posts that the company determines to be ‘libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.’ This is dramatically more restrictive than Twitter’s policies are…
“But whether or not these sites are actually novel departures from the Twitter norm hasn’t been as important as their marketing as sites that represent a novel departure from the Twitter norm… No matter what Musk does to Twitter’s policies going forward, the site will feel more free or less free to a lot of its users—simply because Musk owns it. A ‘free speech’ placebo pill is already taking effect.”
Kaitlyn Tiffany, The Atlantic
“Over the weekend, a story came out of Brussels that many may have missed. The twenty-seven member states of the European Union reached an agreement on a new law requiring big online platforms, including social-media companies, to police hate speech and disinformation more effectively. Under the E.U.’s Digital Services Act, European governments now have the power to ask Web platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to remove any content that promotes terrorism, hate speech, child sexual abuse, or commercial scams. The platforms will also be obliged to prevent the ‘manipulation of services having an impact on democratic processes and public security.’…
“Although the new E.U. agreement stops short of treating online platforms the same as traditional publishers (which may be legally liable for intentionally false content about specific individuals and companies), it will force them to provide users with ‘an easy and effective way’ to flag harmful content, so that it can be removed. The platforms will also be subject to annual audits by European regulators on their efforts to counter disinformation and other abuses… Congress needs to treat the big online platforms like the social utilities they are, and regulate them… the E.U. has just provided a road map for how it could be done.”
John Cassidy, New Yorker
Street artist adds eye-mazing murals.
My Modern Met
