Elon Musk buys Twitter. And many here, me including, start to worry. But why?
As far as I know, Musk hinted at two things he would do: Transparency for Algorithms (okay…) and “more” Free Speech, translate to: less moderating of objectionable, borderline content (oha!).
1/X
As far as I know, Musk hinted at two things he would do: Transparency for Algorithms (okay…) and “more” Free Speech, translate to: less moderating of objectionable, borderline content (oha!).
1/X
The assumption that less moderation in the grey area of lawful but awful leads to “more” free speech on quality-social-media-platforms is too simplistic.
Indeed, less moderation can threat “free speech” by allowing attacks on speakers and listeners.
2/X
Indeed, less moderation can threat “free speech” by allowing attacks on speakers and listeners.
2/X
To put it simple: In a townhall, where everybody is allowed to bring her megaphone to shout or walk (anonymously) close behind other folks and permanently whisper borderline provocations, there will be less speech in the end …
3/X
3/X
Attacks on other speakers through “awful but lawful” speech lead to silencing effects (=self-restricting of speech). What we observe is that a small number of borderline speakers (especially when interaction becomes personal) can silence many others.
4/X
4/X
Interestingly, lawmakers as well as high courts have already endorsed this pro-moderation-logic (German perspective here, see BT-Drs. 19/18792, page 1 and 16; BGH, decision of 29.07.2021 – III ZR 179/20, para 75).
5/X
5/X
The other effect of a “less-moderation-town-hall” is happening through “attacks on listeners”. The most impressive description for the problem I found in brilliant Tim Wu’s paper “Is the First Amendment Obsolete?”
repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol117/iss…
He explains: ...
6/X
repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol117/iss…
He explains: ...
6/X
In the old days (when 1 Amnd was forged), we had a scarcity of speakers, but an abundance of listeners. Free Speech was about protecting speakers from attacks by gvmt. Today, as Internet allows “cheap speech”, we have an abundance of speakers, but scarcity of listeners, ...
7/X
7/X
or at least vulnerability of their attention. Attacks on free speech might today be less directed against the speakers, but against the listeners. Stephe Bannon did the favour in explaining first-hand what it is about: “to flood the zone with shit”
edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/med…
8/X
edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/med…
8/X
So, imo, Musk cannot explain how he wants to help free speech by less moderation (btw: is there one example he can give us? structural problem?)
To the contrary, he would certainly be counterproductive.
Moreover and finally ...
9/X
To the contrary, he would certainly be counterproductive.
Moreover and finally ...
9/X
his lamenting about too much moderation on Twitter stiffling free speech is fueling a conspiracy / politics-PR-trick: “conservatives” and MAGA-ppl who want to paint themselves as victims of corporate-censorship (california big-tech viewpoint-disctriminates our speech)...
10/X
10/X
.. which I think is nonsense often articulated by the most privileged and most uncensored speakers in the world (white, U.S., “conservative”).
PS: #DSA will not help this problem (open to discussion)
PPS: Yes him buying Twitter poses other problems also, I focused here.
End!
PS: #DSA will not help this problem (open to discussion)
PPS: Yes him buying Twitter poses other problems also, I focused here.
End!
maybe of interest for @meyer_resende !
Lets try this:
@threadreaderapp please unroll?
@threadreaderapp please unroll?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
