Dear editor:
During the 1990s, the birth of the worldwide web was initially hailed as a force to expedite global freedom and democracy. Cyberspace was seen as the place where anything could be connected with anything, and individual users could filter content according to their own preferences. The era of universal free and equal speech was provided legal protection from lawsuits in 1996 when Congress adopted Communications Decency Act, section 230. A growing question today is what are the limits of online free speech and who determines those limits?
Back then, peer to peer social media allowed 40 million online users world wide to communicate and share news. Today’s more centralized and commercialized internet has in excess of 4.5 billion active users. Along with that growth in use, there has been a decline in global internet freedom.
Initially, western republics saw the potential of social media to revitalize democracy at home while combatting authoritarian activities abroad. Yet governments of China, India, some middle eastern and other nations now employ various forms of online censorship to control digital traffic and block access to websites identified as problematic. According to research conducted by the nonprofit Freedom House, approximately 3/4 of the world’s internet users live in countries where political, religious or social content is liable to result in arrests.
The original, horizontal web of independent blogs has been overtaken by vertical, centralized tech giant platforms - Google, Meta, and the like. Such centralized platforms by nature are inclined to censorship. As well, disinformation and emotionally charged negative content news is more likely to be retweeted and spread on social media platforms that reward user engagement with likes and shares.
Our institutional attitudes toward social media changed dramatically during the Trump era - beginning with Donald Trump’s effective use of online platform power to win the presidency, followed by his years in office complete with disinformation and hostile propaganda, culminating with his Jan. 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally and the storming of the Capitol. Social media, founded on a dream of direct and immediate free speech, had evolved to become a de facto enforcer of government censorship as the former president was permanently deplatformed and expelled from Twitter. Debate continues as to whether Trump’s suspension is acceptable or arbitrary and disproportionate.
As somewhat of a political counterpoint, in October 2020, Twitter blocked all users from sharing a report by the New York Post that presented incriminating emails originating from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, son of the Democratic presidential candidate. Twitter even blocked the newspaper’s account so as to limit access to information potentially relevant to election outcome. Many regard Twitter’s action as ad hoc damage control of controversial material that represented clear platform bias in its approach to content moderation. Twitter subsequently admitted having made a mistake in targeting the country’s fifth largest and oldest continually published newspaper.
With the suppression of the Hunter Biden story and the banning of former President Trump, such events beg the question who is allowed to speak on a platform. It seems most apparent that the denial of expression is not a winning message. Perhaps we are at the dawning of a new era wherein censorship is declining and a message of free expression is expanding.
On Monday, April 25, Twitter executives approved Elon Musk’s $44 billion bid to purchase the social media company. When the takeover is complete, Twitter shares will be delisted and Mr. Musk will take the company private. Musk was quoted as saying, “I believe in (Twitter’s) potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe. I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.” He also referred to Twitter as “the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.”
The question remains whether Musk can find the proper balance between free speech and sensible moderation. His statements thus far reflect a belief that a more decentralized internet is best for the future of free speech. Seemingly, Musk perceives a social media format built on open protocols wherein end users determine their tolerances for different types of speech rather than centralized proprietary platforms deciding who is allowed to speak.
Big dreams from a man with preeminent vision. Here’s hoping Elon Musk’s quest for a public platform that is both “maximally trusted and broadly inclusive” will optimally serve the future of civilization. With innovation and sustainability as inherent components underlying the success of Tesla and SpaceX, Musk presents as a principled humanitarian who actually puts his money where his mouth is.
Peter Wibell Rutledge