This article was written by Marisa Powers and Tasha Khosla.
Introduction
Elon Musk tweeted out a poll asking users if Twitter adheres to the principle of free speech being essential to a functioning democracy in which 70.4% of users voted no. He instructed users to vote carefully because the “consequences of this poll will be important.” Since this tweet, Twitter has accepted Musk’s buyout deal of $44 billion.
Campus Conservative, Marisa Powers
In response to Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and advocacy for free speech on the platform, author Max Boot said, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” A proper democracy calls for civil discourse, which cannot occur with “more content moderation,” especially if only one side of the aisle is the victim of more content moderation. In my opinion, Twitter has a left-favoring political bias. They claim they are “home to a world of diverse people, perspectives, ideas, and information,” but actively censor content and users they define as “harmful” or “dangerous.” This is evident in their suspension and censorship of prominent conservative figures, such as former president Donald Trump, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, The New York Post, and so on.
Musk’s definition of free speech is as follows: “Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? Then you have free speech.” Free speech should not only be available to those who Twitter deems acceptable. Musk’s plans for Twitter include less strict content moderation rules, among other things. He stated, “I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I do think we want to be very reluctant to delete things, and just be very cautious with permanent bans.” Ben Shapiro said that “it should not be Twitter’s job to try to make discourse better, it should be their job to allow discourse,” which is why I think Musk’s plans to transform Twitter into a private company are justified.
In my view, Elon Musk purchasing Twitter is a win for free speech, and his actions shine an important light on the hypocrisy of the platform.
Campus Liberal, Tasha Khosla
From my perspective, Musk’s vision is nothing more than just an unreachable ideal and will inadvertently do more harm than good. To Musk Twitter has become “kind of the de facto town square. So it’s just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.” Although Musk’s plans to broaden freedom of speech “within the bounds of the law” sounds positive in theory, in practice, it would not be successful in regulating harmful language on the platform.
Historically, Twitter has not been a safe space for women, particularly women of color, to express their thoughts and opinions. In general, Twitter users from marginalized communities have experienced harassment and abuse during their time on the platform. In 2021 alone, Twitter recorded “record amounts” of hate speech on the platform. A study even found that “Women of color […] were 34% more likely to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets than white women.”
Twitter’s already apparent toxicity makes Musk’s vision more dangerous, as those who have already experienced online abuse on the platform will be even more unlikely to continue using it. Although Musk acknowledges that different countries have different limitations on free speech imposed and is willing to respect that, his plan does not acknowledge the current issues with the platform.
Conclusion
Both sides disagree on Musk’s actions and have different opinions on what should be done to improve the platform.
The Conversation is an Opinion column written by two students of opposing political viewpoints, used to discuss current events from different perspectives.
Be First to Comment