I'm following carefully the new Twitter. The Elon Musk Twitter.
There's been a lot of changes since Musk bought Twitter. While he's proclaimed that he wants Twitter to be fully open to free speech, he quickly found that free speech includes speech that is broadly considered to be offensive. The major example is Kanye West, who (possibly in a mental health crisis) posted something clearly racist and offensive to multiple groups.
Musk has agreed to step aside as the leader of Twitter, but he's added since that he can't do so until a suitable replacement has been found. And therein is the problem. Few people want to lead such a difficult business that hasn't been profitable since it was created! And one mired in much controversy, from accusations of "shadow-banning" and muting of unpopular speech, to the recent evidence that Twitter actively cooperated with the FBI and perhaps other Governemnt agencies to monitor and mute those who were seen as a threat to the Liberal mindset.
Free speech is a great idea. The United States has enshrined free speech as a fundamental, God-given right that all humanity is entitled to enjoying, without the ability of government to squelch speech it doesn't like. Certain other enumarated rights, such as the freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press, freedom to practice one's faith, and the rights of property and self-defense, are all connected to the right of free speech.
There have always been reasonable limits on free speech. An anarchist may believe in total free speech, without limits, but most people accept that it's unsafe, unwise, and thus morally repugnant to yell "fire" falsely in a crowded place. We generally agree that certain speech of pornographers and terrorists may be restricted; those who advocate violence and harm probably shouldn't be given as easy access to "the public square" as other speech does receive.
But our nation was founded with acts that the current Establishment would find offensive and intolerable: the Boston Tea Party not only destroyed property but was a public expression of outrage against an unfair and injust government.
Apparently, the colonial leaders were right in calling for the overthrow of their government, which did not represent them fairly, but the idea of insurerection or rebellion or even civil protests via free speech may be abhorant and intolerable to the current government!
Every government seeks to protect itself; no government nor governor welcomes speech critical of its decisions and policies!
The American Constitution bears within itself the foundation of insurrection. It containes both the processes by which the governemnt can be modified, including modifying the constitution, but also the provision that it is within the rights of the citizen to once again overthrown a tyranical government. Of course, no government sees itself as tyranical.
The problem that Musk faces is similar to that the Courts faced many years ago. A judge said, "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it." For Musk, it's about what speech is essential to the "social discource" whereby ideas can be heard, considered, debated, and perhaps accepted or rejected, versus speech that has "no socially redeeming value" such as violence, harm to others, etc. Should the Islamic Brotherhood or Caliphate be given unfettered access to Social Media? Should they be able to post videos and photos of beheadings of "infidels"? Should a government be able to livestream the public execution of a convict? Should pedophiles be able to post and exchange their content without moderation? Should sex trafficers be able to be virtual pimps and advertise their slaves online?
Many of these evils will exist with or without social media; a pure "free speech" philosophy would allow all speech without regard to "social value." Any time we restrict speech short of unlimited free speech, we face the problem of content moderation, and what is the standard in each category for full censoring, or filter restrictions, or other means of regulating the content?
As well as considering the content being posted, we must consider the potential audience. While Twitter and most social media platforms have age limits to protect young minors, should a minor who is above the minimum age still be granted unlimited unfiltered access to all content? Or should certain content be restricted to "adults" (of whatever age)?
Nobody in their right mind wants to be responsible for managing Twitter, and Musk has found himself tryng to stear a "ship" that seems to have no rudder, tossed about by the fickle whims of its users, and subject to the hostile opinions of politicians, the media, and other prominent people. How does one rationally manage such a beast? How can one devise clear content policies and then provide active moderation?
I don't envy Elon Musk!
No comments:
Post a Comment