Musk, who has always opposed censorship, is the freedom of speech he insists on?
The author | Liu Jun
Journalist in the business media
"Musk claims to have secured enough funding to take a well-known tech company private." It's not Twitter, it's Tesla.
In 2018, a tweet by Musk caused him endless trouble. He claimed he had secured funding to privatize Tesla, causing Tesla's stock price to soar and misleading investors. The SEC filed a lawsuit against Musk, demanding that Musk himself and Tesla each pay a $20 million fine. In addition, there is an important clause: Musk must obtain permission from the company's lawyers when he publishes tweets related to Tesla.
Recently, Musk has demanded an end to the provision, arguing that it suppresses his right to free speech. However, it was rejected by a judge in the Southern District Court of New York. The timing of the dismissal was very delicate, just two days after Twitter's board accepted Musk's recent takeover offer.
Not only that, but the SEC is also investigating a tweet by Musk that is suspected of violating the above terms. In November 2021, Musk launched a vote on Twitter asking whether he would support the sale of 10% of Tesla's stock; according to the vote, Musk actually sold the stock, causing Tesla's stock price to fall. The SEC believes the tweet was published without the consent of the company's lawyers.
For now, Musk's acquisition of Twitter is far from over. There are still two hurdles in the procedure: one is the shareholder vote, and the other is the regulatory approval. The former may not pass because musk's offer of a purchase price ($54.2) does not reach Twitter's all-time high (above $77), while the latter has greater variables.
Musk's relationship with the SEC is very strained. In early April, he called the regulator a "jerk" on Twitter. The regulator's rejection of Musk's request this time seems to be shouting to the public with practical actions: Does what you call freedom of speech also include the "false information" you have created?
Musk has announced his ambitious Twitter overhaul program — "unlocking Twitter's potential" and "a platform for free speech around the world." But Musk has clearly underestimated the difficulty of the task, and Twitter may be the waterloo for the business tycoon.
Musk is not a myth
There is no doubt that Musk is a successful entrepreneur and a pry guru. The public's memories of him are almost always fragments of success. For example, "the launch of the recyclable rocket was successful", "Tesla has completed the mass production target", "Mars colonization plan", "global energy conversion plan". It seems that as long as Musk wants to do something, he will be able to do it and will not renege on his word.
This is a selective memory bias. A Washington Post reporter commented on a recent podcast show that Musk often breaks his promises; however, he will continue to move forward and attract the attention of the public with more exciting topics:
He once declared on Twitter that "in three months, at most six months, Tesla's full autopilot function will surpass the enhanced autopilot function", claiming that it occurred in 2017 and has not yet been realized; in 2019, Musk announced that its brain-computer interface company Neuralink can implant chips into the human brain by 2020. The reality is that by 2021, Musk said that "in the next year, the progress will accelerate."
We certainly don't belittle Musk because his many predictions and promises have not been fulfilled. We're just trying to articulate a basic truth: In business, breaking promises and predicting mistakes is the norm. The transformation of Twitter will not have a higher success rate because Musk will do it.
Because, Twitter is a "hot potato".
In the social media space, Twitter is a very special presence. It has many more active users (220 million), much less than Facebook (1.78 billion), Instagram (2 billion) and Tik Tok (1 billion). However, it is much more influential than they are, and can be described as "extremely influential". Because there are a disproportionate number of politicians, celebrities, intellectuals on Twitter. It's a place that influences how people think and how they see things. Messages generated on Twitter are often forwarded to the mainstream media, even the president's office.
In other words, Twitter is a gathering place for an "elite group." And these elites can influence the direction of the world. Elites have two characteristics: one is that it is not easy to cut leeks, and the other is that it is difficult to manage.
Twitter reflects the paradox of freedom
Profitability has always been a weakness for Twitter, which derives its revenue mainly from advertising, but it is not satisfactory. As a public company, Twitter's management faces tremendous pressure from shareholders, which is exerted on a "quarterly" cycle, and management reports every quarter, which severely limits Twitter's ability to make long-term plans and revise its business model.
Musk took Twitter private and said he "doesn't care about Twitter's financial gains," which seems to offer the possibility of Twitter making long-term plans. But, as an elite-gathered tweet, the second characteristic is trickier — these people have too many ideas.
Before about 2015, Twitter wasn't what it is now. At the time, twitter agreed on free speech that "we will let go of our hands and freedom of speech will solve [those issues]" on its own." But after 2015, things changed. Because after "letting go of the hand", "freedom of speech does not solve those difficult problems on its own". Twitter has become a place of impunity for bad deeds, and in the name of "free speech", many people post hate speech, pornographic information, online bullying, and privacy leakage are rampant. The media dubbed Twitter an "ugly place."
As a result, Twitter changed its strategy, no longer emphasizing the value of "letting go of the hand", but instead investing a lot of resources to make the platform a seemingly safe place. For five years, Twitter's actions seem to have worked. More reporting tools, more censorship, and more bannings make the platform look less smoky.
But the behavior angers another group of people — elites who hold traditional values of free speech. Musk is one of them, calling himself an "absolutist of free speech." He expects Twitter to go from the past to a "mild, moderate style."
However, looking back at Twitter's history, this kind of scene has not occurred. Twitter as a social media platform has only existed for two eras. One is adhering to the "traditional values of free speech", and naturally there is an era of "haters rampant, women, people of color and marginalized groups are ruthlessly attacked and punished"; the second is the era of strict censorship, but it has led to a serious contraction in the space for speech.
Musk's desire to create an ideal "Garden of Eden" has the potential to bring Twitter back to its previous era. As Angelo Carrousson, CEO of media Matters for America, an American nonprofit, put it: "Musk's views on free speech are confusing. He treats all information equally, including disinformation and extreme views. ”
The more severe test comes from Europe.
Less than 72 hours before Musk announced its acquisition of Twitter, Europe tightened its regulation of social media platforms. EU lawmakers agreed on the Digital Services Act, which requires online platforms to take more responsibility for the content their users post online. This means that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter will have to conduct stricter content censorship, and companies that violate the rules may face fines of up to 6% of annual revenue.
As long as Twitter still wants to operate in Europe, it has to comply with the decision from Brussels. However, this runs counter to Musk's ideals.
Was Musk the first to pursue idealized free speech? No, there were many people who had tried before him, and none of them were idle people. In the end, without exception, they all fell into the paradox and contradiction of freedom of "idealized freedom of speech" and "difficult choices caused by letting everyone speak out", and they withdrew.
Ten years ago, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said, "Social media sites are liberals in the Freedom of Speech Party." "This means that Twitter will defend people's ability to post whatever they want and be heard by the world." In a 2019, Zuckerberg said in a speech that making everyone speak up is easier said than done. This is in line with the views expressed by Twitter co-founder Biz Stone in 2011. Eventually, these people went from free-speech hardliners to "speech nanny" (meaning to be cautious about speech).
This time, it was Musk who chose the hot potato of social media. Before predicting whether Musk can really turn Twitter into a "square of free speech", there is an unknown question, musk, who has always opposed censorship, what kind of freedom of speech he insists on?
Anand Giridharadas is a Columnist for The New York Times and a best-selling author and political critic. He argues that in the pen of the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, Musk's freedom is "negative freedom of speech," that is, freedom of speech that is not restricted by powerful authorities, and is the only freedom of speech. In contrast, there is "positive freedom of speech," which is to take positive measures and create conditions in which everyone can feel and freely express their ideas.
In the face of Musk's frequent performance-debunking of "censorship" in a seemingly performative manner, including efforts to address harassment and abuse. Anand quotes Saiya Berlin as reminding Americans that "the freedom of wolves often means the death of sheep." Americans often overlook this. ”
This article is a special original manuscript of the Commentary Department of Phoenix Network, and only represents the author's position.
Editor-in-chief | Zhang Feng
Click "Watching" to support it