Technology and social media have changed the dynamics of free speech in America, and the announcement today that mercurial billionaire Elon Musk will take over Twitter will bring this change into sharp relief.
The constitutional view of speech in our country has always been to protect the most vile and offensive speech as the price to pay for liberty. The thinking was that in an environment where ideas can be vigorously debated, the best ones would rise to the top.
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. Musk had said earlier that “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.”
The problem is that in an impulsive medium like Twitter, it’s not ideas that dominate speech but attitude. Speaking freely, or should I say tweeting freely, means lots of snap, snark and darts. The ideas are there, but they’re lost in the noise of verbal warfare and partisan and personal agendas. To quote The New York Times: “Political leaders have used it as a megaphone, while companies, celebrities and others have employed it for image-making and brand building.”
None of that will change with new ownership. More unfettered speech on Twitter, no matter in which political direction, won’t improve or deepen the national conversation. But is that even on Musk’s agenda? It doesn’t look like it.
When Musk champions the ability to “speak freely within the bounds of the law,” he must know that the law allows the most disgusting speech, including even hate speech. Indeed, if the “law” is Musk’s only boundary, good luck developing an algorithm that can ferret out the very narrow legal exceptions to free speech.
In any case, private industry is not bound by Constitutional protections of speech, which is why giant platforms like Twitter and Facebook have tried to moderate speech as they saw fit, whether to censor bigoted speech or blatant disinformation.
The problem is that these platforms lost credibility when they showed their political bias. The most blatant example was the blocking of the now-verified New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop before the last presidential elections.
A medium that prizes snarky repartee and partisan agendas will always mitigate against vigorous and constructive debate.
But beyond the impossibility of objectively moderating a free-for-all platform like Twitter, the real problem is that a medium that prizes snarky repartee and partisan agendas will always mitigate against vigorous and constructive debate.
Ironically, the best way to nourish such debate is to look to traditional media, not social media. It’s only by having sharp editors carefully vet and edit smart, thoughtful commentary from all sides that we can hope to elevate the national conversation.
If Elon Musk wants to elevate the national conversation, he should buy The New York Times and CNN.
That would require, of course, more media companies in America that care about and value smart, thoughtful commentary and analysis from all sides. As Batya Ungar-Sargon documented in her book, “Bad News: How Woke Media is Undermining Democracy,” these editors are now few and far between, and their bias has infected even social media.
If Elon Musk wants to elevate the national conversation, he should buy legacy media like The New York Times and CNN, and hire editors who are passionately committed to deep and vigorous debate that won’t favor any side. That may even improve the quality of our tweets.
