In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal Bradley A. Smith graciously provides an agenda for Elon Musk as he sits on the board of Twitter:
1. Leave more content up. Twitter has rules about posts, and the bulk of enforcement is done through artificial intelligence. The algorithms err on the side of taking down material that might violate Twitter rules. Instead, they should err on the side of leaving questionable material up until there has been human review.
2. More aggressively screen complaints. Currently, there is too much bad-faith reporting done for the purpose of getting controversial, but legitimate, content taken down. For every 10 content moderators tasked with taking down content, hire a content defender, whose job is to advocate for keeping or putting content back up. Err on the side of speech, not censorship.
3. Create an easy-to-use, rapid, transparent appeals process for takedowns of material, and especially for banned or suspended accounts.
4. Stop caving in to organized campaigns to remove particular speakers. Twitter doesn’t have to take sides in the culture wars. Say nothing, and let the controversy subside.
5. Don’t respond to overt requests from government officials to take down content. When government officials covertly request content removal, expose them, and ignore the request. When government officials tell you to “watch out†for particular misinformation, be skeptical—of both their intentions and their accuracy.
6. Eliminate the “fact-checking†program. It is biased and, because people know it is biased, has had the opposite of its intended effect. It has destroyed Twitter’s credibility.
7. Conduct an outside audit of Twitter’s policy of removing “false or misleading information†about Covid. In particular, ask: a) How much “misinformation†was removed that is now considered true?; b) What effect did removal have on the overall debate?; c) Did it prevent or delay correct information from reaching the public?; and d) Did removal actually stop the information’s spread? Use the knowledge gained to review other policies, and apologize where appropriate.
8. Review the “hateful conduct†policy to be sure that it isn’t squelching public discussion on contested issues, and change the policy where needed. For example, not every instance of or reference to “misgendering†should automatically be removed as hateful.
9. End the ban on political ads. Since 2019, Twitter has banned political ads. Not just ads from Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and other candidates, but any ad that discusses any issue, from climate change to gun rights to an ad promoting a local ballot measure. Low-cost ads on Twitter are a huge benefit to grass roots organizations. As Twitter is anything but a politics-free zone, it’s hard to see a downside to allowing political advertising on the same terms as commercial advertising.
10. Stop supporting congressional legislation that would reduce speech, such as the misnamed “Honest Ads Act.†Make the company an advocate for free speech, not censorship.
I have no idea why Elon Musk purchased 10% of Twitter, entitling him to a seat on the company’s board of directors. Maybe he did it to straighten Twitter out. Maybe he did it to make money. Maybe both. Maybe something else. It’s his money.
My point here is that, if Elon Musk bought 10% of Twitter to make Twitter “a positive force for democracy”, he’s doing it the right way. He became a stockholder, a substantial stockholder.
I suspect that’s tilting at windmills. Remember Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics.
Twitter suspended the Babylon Bee Twitter account because they were mean.
I suspect Mr Musk brought 10% of Twitter for the same reason Mr Bezos brought the Washington Post.
I reject the idea that a private company can censure posts on its site, especially if it is public media. If the “penumbra†of the Bill of Rights creates a privacy right that legitimizes abortion (which I support), it certainly creates a right that prohibits FaceBook, Twitter et al from censuring posts.
These companies should be treated as common carriers like AT&T.
10% does not give him control, only a voice. If he’s serious, he will buy 51%.
bob sykes: I reject the idea that a private company can censure posts on its site
So, for every on-topic comment, Glittering Eye has to allow hundreds of penis enlargement and find a Slovakian girlfriend ads? That turns the First Amendment on its head. The First Amendment protects the right of people to establish forums. A knitting circle can exclude someone who insists on arguing about crochet or politics.
I don’t run any ads at all which has the effect of limiting the ads that I run. This blog is a hobby not a money-making enterprise and I do spend money on it. It’s not a particularly expensive hobby as hobbies go.
Dave Schuler: I don’t run any ads at all which has the effect of limiting the ads that I run.
We were referring to the comment section, that is, allowing some comments means allowing all comments. (We do appreciate the forum.)
Zach provides a nice simplistic, red herring argument.
That media can restrict publication of certain subjects is well established. However, this has been limited, and the classic example is protection of crime victims from having their identities divulged. This is a different issue in kind than political opinion or evolving scientific debate.
The real issue is what is the universe of entities that can restrict publication. The First Amendment precludes one, the federal government, from doing so, or interfering in public medias rights. That’s what the Pentagon papers was all about. Some would argue that this extends to a second player, states. And some would argue that it extends further to large, monopolistic entities like the handful we have now: Twitter, Facebook etc. That’s the issue at hand. Here’s one take by a well known chap:
“the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.â€
Along with the observation of another well known chap:
“error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.â€
This isn’t a trite issue, as Zach would have one believe, about penis enlargement ads. Its about what entities qualify as having monopoly power over information and ideas. Twitter et al’s obvious uneven treatment make the issue pretty clear.
The first quotation is FDR. The second is Thomas Jefferson.
This is a tough one. I generally favor few restrictions on speech. However, surely there is some point at which people are not allowed to lie to people knowing that if those lies are believed it results in harm to the people reading the lies and believing them, but also harms others when people act on those false beliefs.
Should you be able to promote drugs that cause harm? How about ones that just dont work? How about lying about drugs that do work so that people wont use them? Is the right approach to a snake oil salesman/grifter to allow him to make his sale then sue afterwards?
Since this pertains to entities like Twitter I am also hesitant about interfering with their decisions about what to publish. They need to make money and if they decide their interests are best served by having a more honest or less angry product that should up to them. If they are wrong another company will replace them or at least take a big chunk of their business.
Steve
Why do I get a feeling this is a profitable troll of the twitterati. However, would rather see more work on the passenger version of Starship and test flights.
â€However, surely there is some point at which people are not allowed to lie to people knowing that if those lies are believed it results in harm to the people reading the lies and believing them, but also harms others when people act on those false beliefs.â€
People define “lies†often according to their own agenda. BTW, who makes the call that something used successfully, for medicinal purposes around the world, is a “lie†when promoted here in the U.S.?
IMO, Twitter has become a microphone, specifically messaging the social progressive narrative on most important issues facing our country today – whether it’s pandemic guidelines, the southern border invasion, gender topics and it’s appropriate discussion in public education, climate forecasts, election integrity, reasons behind inflation, Ukraine involvement and so on. Twitter essentially has become an unfair playing field, evolving into both judge and jury in what it deems as “misinformation†or not. Consequently, dissenting comments, a differing read on science or data is labeled and then censored as untrue. To develop an opposing platform, where free speech is allowed, is time-consuming and difficult once a massive platform like Twitter has taken over as the official loud-speaker of the world. Only the requirement of open and free debate will counter the narrowness dominating social media’s attempts to mold speech according to the dictates of their own ideology and world order visions.
10% is just as effective as 50% for Mr Musk to get he wants; without the burden of owning Twitter and being responsible for its decisions.
It should be noted the founder, Jack Dorsey saw the stock go from $77 to $33 before he left; and the current CEO is from the software side of the company and his strong suit is unlikely to be in media/communications (which is what Twitter is, its not a “tech company”). Given Musk’s involvement drove the stock up 60%, its likely management/BOD can’t alienate Musk, cause him to dump and tank the stock, and expose themselves to shareholder lawsuits. So Musk’s “suggestions” will be fulfilled.
You can bet it this also makes it 10x more complicated for the SEC to penalize Musk for his usage of Twitter (remember the settlement on stock manipulation). It is also going to create second thoughts in the FTC, Congress, and the administration before they go after Musk in his other ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink) or his wealth/obvious tax avoidance.
“Never get in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel”.
Drew: That media can restrict publication of certain subjects is well established.
ETA: The original claim was “I reject the idea that a private company can censure posts on its site.” Our comment was directed to that position, which we assert is untenable.
There are a number of constraints on free speech, including the publication of copyrighted material (once notified), or criminal activity (when made aware). Regardless, the knitting circle has every right to kick you and your crochet militancy off the forum.
As you note, an exception occurs when a business gets so large as to exert undue power over their sector. The problem is that “conservatives” in the U.S. have undermined government anti-trust oversight for generations, claiming the market will eventually sort it out. We support a more rational approach, but such an approach would have far-reaching consequences that the political right has and will adamantly oppose.
Historically, there is always a “reversion to the mean”, and the mean changes slowly. While liberalism slowly moves the mean, progressivism quickly causes the backlash, and historical conservatism is far more authoritarianism than today’s version.
History does not end. Modernism and post-modernism are silly terms intended to infer seriousness onto nonsense. Modern history does not begin 20, 100, or 2000 years ago. Modern history begins at least 5000 years ago, and that is highly debatable.
The social mean is far to the right of today’s progressivism, and when it swings back, social norms will overshoot it to the right. Historically, social norms have been to the right of “modern conservatism”.
Historically, progressivism is always on the “wrong side of history”, and the backlash it generatest usually has the effect of moving the “social mean” leftward. On the other hand, liberalism incorporates itself into the social fabric, but it is done slowly during periods of great wealth.
Free speech rights were meant to protect the minority, and this requires protecting the repugnant, as well. Liberal concepts and ideals are easily repressed, and when they are repressed, minorities are easily oppressed.
Removing these safeguards to protect feelings removes the safeguards to protect bodies, and sooner rather than later, the minorities being protected will soon be hunted. Unfortunately, their safeguards will have been “thrown to the wind”.
Many of the people proclaiming the inalienability of free speech rights will use the same reasoning to violate those rights, and using the same reasoning, this violation will quickly spread to other rights, many not specified in the Constitution.
“The problem is that “conservatives†in the U.S. have undermined government anti-trust oversight for generations”
Remember that the right really doesnt have much in the way of principles anymore. Their support or opposition to anti-trust activity will depend upon whether or not they support or oppose the actions of the large corporation/sector in question.
“As you note, an exception occurs when a business gets so large as to exert undue power over their sector.”
I think these places still need to be able to have the ability to not publish stuff we know is false. We know laetrile does not work. Yes, you can find false studies but it doesnt work. Mercury is still advocated as a treatment boy some people who are nurses and doctors aporudn the world. We know mercury as a treatment is only harmful. Some nurse in a small country claiming that they have seen it work doesnt mean it works.
Steve
I think there’s an equal, maybe greater, question as to whether they have the right to publish stuff we know is false.
Trump just endorsed Dr Oz. I told the wife he was going to win the nomination in our state. An obvious liar and grifter but about half of the people in my state will convince themselves to vote for him. They will also convince themselves those diet pills really do work and the medical elites are trying to hide information that would let people know the truth. Heck, a couple of nurses somewhere used his diet pills and it worked for them so what better evidence do you need?
Steve
IMO, Oz was a poor choice as someone to endorse. I was very disappointed by this move. But, then again, one of Trump’s frailties has been picking wrong people to consult and surround himself with
I very, very rarely use Twitter and only for specific purposes, so what happens to Twitter is something I don’t care very much about except to the extent it serves as a cognitive bubble for elites.