The tantrum over Elon Musk acquiring Twitter speaks volumes about contempt for free speech
Outcry on the left gives perfect cover for U.S. government to review company no longer playing ball to stop discourse deemed as 'disinformation'
Elon Musk’s new ownership of Twitter, by any expectation, would have ruffled the feathers of the left. After all, the new “chief twit,” as Musk has described recently himself, has openly disdained the Democrats as the new “party of hate” and proclaimed he would vote Republican in the upcoming mid-term election.
But the reaction has quickly escalated from reasonable objections to an outright tantrum as celebrities bolt from Twitter, top executives in the company head for the exits and companies signal they may no longer do business with the social media platform. A top advertising firm, IPG’s Mediabrands, is advising clients to suspend ads on Twitter for the next week “due to trust and safety concerns under the leadership of its new CEO Elon Musk,” according to a report in Politico.
Musk’s newly announced plans to charge $8 a month for blue-check mark status on Twitter may have been expected to inspire a degree of debate, even though the proposal is consistent with other online platforms seeking reasonable compensation for business or promotional interests. The hyperbolic reaction, however, suggests it would recklessly undermine the verification on Twitter and come at a financial cost unbearable to users — if not be a reason itself to jump from the platform.
Earlier this week, the outcry was audible after Musk posted and subsequently deleted on Twitter a now debunked article on the Paul Pelosi assault, making it appear to be more than meets the eye. One explosive media headlines that followed seized on the tweet as evidence Musk was turning Twitter, in the words of The Daily Beast, into a “post-truth world.” Deleting the tweet wasn’t enough; Musk needed to shed crocodile tears of penitence showing regret.
Let the person who hasn’t shared something on Twitter they later retracted cast the first stone. Personally, if I were the owner of a new social media platform billing itself as open to everyone to post their regardless of their ideology, I wouldn’t have posted a controversial and uncorroborated article in the first place, but it was Musk’s prerogative to tweet it out and taking it down demonstrates he recognized it wasn’t a good idea.
The left’s over-the-top reaction to Musk acquiring Twitter seems par for the course at this point. It’s all very consistent with the new mantra of the left: If you don’t get your way, scream and shout until that happens or the underlying institution they deem unsatisfactory is utterly destroyed.
Here’s why it’s happening: Musk has not only positioned himself as a free-speech advocate and earned praise on the right, but openly rejected the controls the left has been seeking. Musk has denounced acts of censorship by Twitter prior to his acquisition, including the refusal to allow shares of a New York Post article during the 2020 election of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Musk has also said he’d invite Donald Trump to return to Twitter after he was banned following the Jan. 6 assault of the U.S. Capitol.
But the bigger reason — and the one demonstrating the left’s new contempt for free speech — is Musk has signaled he won’t police discourse on Twitter deemed as disinformation or misinformation, or at least not the same way as previous ownership. When news reports earlier this year emerged about the Department of Homeland Security standing up a “Disinformation Governance Board,” Musk replied to a tweet about the development and called it "discomforting.”
If a bombshell report this week in The Intercept revealing social media companies and the U.S. government are working behind-the-scenes to stop the spread of disinformation is any indication, that work still continues. Twitter has been among the companies having regular meetings with U.S. government officials working to stop the spread of disinformation, The Intercept reports. Along with Facebook, Twitter had set up a website portal allowing U.S. government officials — and U.S. government officials alone — could log in to identify and flag posts deemed disinformation, according to The Intercept.
To my knowledge, Musk hasn’t publicly commented on the news story this week from The Intercept, even though it squarely implicates the company he just acquired. Musk’s comment, perhaps, was more subtle: Among the Twitter executives regularly meeting with U.S. government officials, The Intercept reported, was Vijaya Gadde, who was among those immediately canned by Musk last week as he took over.
Fears of disinformation are basically now the central talking point of the Democratic Party just days ahead of the 2022 mid-term election, especially after the assault on Paul Pelosi. Negative online discourse from top to bottom on Nancy Pelosi — some of which was mocking her in over the top or even distasteful ways — was blamed for the assault, even though no one had called for an assailant to break into her home.
Apparently, public criticism, anger and ridicule to express discontent or dislike of public figures is something Democrats can’t stomach, which is why they’re calling for content moderation. Conspiracy theories about the attack, now embraced by Donald Trump, are out there as well, but at end of the day that’s a component of free speech. It’s up to the individual to decide what is true or not.
Censorship of disinformation is censorship of free speech. As I’ve said before, the remedy for discourse that is incorrect or harmful is, simply, more free speech denouncing or repudiating that, not a hand from above deciding what should be said or not be said. The refusal to allow the spread of the New York Post on Hunter Biden’s laptop shows the implications of an authority with that power.
The U.S. government appears to be attuning itself to the hyperbolic reaction to Musk’s purchase of Twitter, as suggested by news reports of internal discussions of investigating the social media company.
The Washington Post today has a detailed report on the Treasury Department beginning to look into whether or not it has the authority to investigate Twitter, citing Musk’s ties to foreign governments and investors. The stated basis for the investigation, the Post reports, is large foreign entities having access to confidential information about Twitter’s finances — and potentially its users.
It’s not just the Treasury Department. Talks about a potential U.S. government review of Musk buying Twitter, the Post reports, are all the way up at the White House and this past spring FBI officials were engaged in such conversations. Sen. Chris Murphy publicly jumped into the fray earlier this week, calling for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to investigate Twitter’s over its business ties to the Saudi government.
Foreign ties to Twitter are undisputed: One company with holdings by the Saudi royal family openly stated it will back Musk and continue to its $1.89 billion investment in Twitter. Among those backing Musk’s purchase of Twitter, the Post reports, is Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange founded in China but now located elsewhere, Tesla, a company where Musk is chief executive, also has extensive ties to China, the Post reports.
But here’s the deal, even the government officials with the power to initiate such investigations acknowledge the grounds for looking into Musk’s purchase of Twitter may not be enough, according to the Post:
Treasury staff at the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) have not yet determined whether Musk’s purchase of the social media platform could trigger a national security review, according to one person familiar with the matter. Musk is a U.S. citizen, and CFIUS reviews are typically used to investigate investments by foreign nationals. So it is not clear whether they can initiate such a review, and policy experts are divided on whether one would be warranted.
…
The early work on a potential inquiry has not yet reached the principals on the CFIUS committee — whose members include Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin — and is in its preliminary days. The person familiar with the matter stressed that it is still possible that CFIUS concludes it does not have the authority even to begin an investigation and that the probe ends there.
Whether or not some aspect of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, including foreign investment, is enough for review, the public consternation over Musk’s acquisition gives officials the perfect cover to under such an investigation without outcry over government overreach. It would also give the opportunity for coercion and intimidation of a new company that won’t play ball anymore with government coordination in censorship. That’s an end-around approach to limit free speech.