What Elon Musk’s Twitter ‘free speech’ promises miss

Illustration by Kristen Radtke / The Verge; Getty Images

Musk offered to save free speech.

I invested in the social network as I believe it has the potential to be a platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy. The company needs to be transformed into a private company.

It's not clear how this will play out, but there's a bigger question: who is threatening free speech? There is a complicated interplay between different visions of what should be allowed on the internet, with governments across the world looking to crack down on internet platforms. Musk's eye seems almost entirely focused on the far smaller question of the internal rules of the micro-blogging site.

Dick Costolo, the former CEO of the platform, claimed that it was the free speech wing of the free speech party. The free speech controversies of that era were mostly about the relationship with governments. The platform earned praise for allowing activists to organize under threat of political oppression in Egypt and other countries. Costolo bragged about his fight with the US government over account data related to the website.

In an interview with Chris Anderson on Thursday, Musk was more specific about his concerns, and almost entirely focused on the company. Musk didn't show much appetite for fighting global speech restrictions, but he did raise the possibility of it being a violation of the country's laws. A version with more transparent recommendations has been envisioned by Jack Dorsey.

Musk told Anderson that it was important for people to have the perception that they are able to speak freely.

Musk was reflecting on a common belief that the primary arbiter of what people can say is on social media. Governments around the world still have a big say in how things are said. Since Costolo's comment, online speech laws have changed. Several countries have passed rules that are supposed to crack down on the spread of false online information, and some have threatened to ban platforms that don't comply. European privacy rules require platforms to remove embarrassing information posted online under certain circumstances. India implemented a strict legal regime for social media companies, requiring local offices to appoint government liaisons and raiding Twitter's offices.

Even inside the US, which has some of the world's most permissive speech laws, there are other power works. The platform has some of the loosest standards around adult content for a major social network, but the law threatens companies with legal protections if they allow content related to sex work. US copyright law has an exception to the normal rules that protects platforms from legal liability. The way companies interpret rules has a huge effect on users.

Big tech platforms are involved in lobbying for new laws in the US. Jack Dorsey appeared before Congress multiple times during his tenure as CEO, where he was asked about issues like how lawmakers should change Section 230, one of the central pillars of online speech. Musk hasn't indicated what role a newly private Twitter might play in these debates, and it's not clear he's interested. We don't know how Musk would engage with other digital gatekeepers. If Apple demanded that it cut off access to pornography through its app, would it not play ball?

Far from being better equipped to protect free speech, a Musk-owned Twitter might be in a weaker position than a publicly owned one. Musk's involvement in numerous other industries, including telecommunications with Starlink, would give regulators and politicians added leverage. This kind of leverage has already been a powerful weapon against Apple, which has complied with Chinese censorship to avoid losing access to a massive market for its hardware. Musk's businesses have the extra twist of being involved in government contracts and subsidies, the sort of deal that a high-profile moderation fight might put at risk.

Costolo's comment suggested that the speech stance was not as strict as it was. Even though he and other employees were still using the phrase, they complied with French and German hate speech rules. Costolo acknowledged after a French that the company had to abide by the laws in the countries in which it operates. If you want to turn a profit as a global company, there is a limit to how many laws you can violate.

Costolo acknowledged that there was a much bigger world. Liz has framed Musk's takeover plans as a troll trying to hold onto his toy. The mod is the only enemy a troll really fears.