Upon striking the deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, Elon Musk took to the platform to state the following:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518677066325053441
A day prior to the deal, Musk tweeted
the following
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1518623997054918657
This resulted in reports that Musk had blocked multiple users
on Twitter.
The chief US correspondent for the UK-based The
Independent, Andrew Buncombe reported
that Musk has blocked him seemingly without any reason.
Buncombe also reported that a Washington DC-based nonprofit
watchdog group claiming to be been ‘standing up to corporate power and holding
government accountable for 50 years’ was blocked by Musk.
https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1519064518441246725
Fortune reported
that a nineteen-year-old Jack Sweeney got Musk's attention by creating an
automated Twitter account that tracked the movements of Musk's jet. Musk
responded by offering Sweeney $5,000 to delete his account. When Sweeney
refused, Musk blocked him on Twitter.
There have to be myriad other users that Musk has blocked.
The implication is that Musk is a hypocrite for claiming to
be an absolutist regarding freedom of expression while choosing to block certain
users.
In order to evaluate that claim, we look at the social life of
regular human beings.
As you grow older you develop opinions, ideas, and choices,
you often have strong likes and dislikes.
This applies to your choices in friendships and
associations.
There are individuals you are immensely fond of, hence you
want them in your closest circles. Your liking could emanate from the fact that
you agree with them on matters of importance. Perhaps these individuals are fun
to be with. Perhaps they are well-wishers who never hesitate to tell you the
harsh truth.
There are individuals whose company don’t mind but you aren't
too fond of either, you keep in touch but maintain distance. You send them
greetings on their birthdays and festivals. You gladly exchange pleasantries
are social gatherings.
Finally, there are individuals you simply cannot tolerate, it
could be what they say or how they say it or how they behave, or their past
deeds. Perhaps it is just your visceral instinct that is driving your
revulsion. You avoid such individuals at all costs, you even skip social
gatherings where the individual is invited.
These principles are also applied to books, films, articles,
and speeches. You eagerly consume content that interests you, you postpone
consumption of content you deem to be mildly engaging but you avoid those that
you despise.
Does this position make you anti-freedom of speech?
No, it doesn’t, the people whom you despise are living their
lives while books, films, articles, and speeches are still available for others
to consume. You just choose to avoid them.
If you were to use your powers to ban books, films, articles,
and speeches that you disapprove of and imprison individuals whose ideas you
dislike that is categorically against freedom of expression and undemocratic.
Exercising choice is an important aspect of being free. If you
are compelled to consume specific content, it is against the principles of a
free society. Only totalitarian regimes enforce directives and compel
their citizens to listen to certain speeches and consume certain content and
ban the ‘problematic’ content. This elimination of choice is undemocratic.
Back to Twitter, where the choices are similar to that in your
daily life.
As a Twitter user, you have the choice to follow whomever you
like. Perhaps you find their opinion stimulating and want more. Perhaps you
despise their opinions but would want to be exposed to them. You obviously have
a choice to not follow whoever you do not care for.
In a situation where an individual is annoying or is targeting
or trolling you, you either have the option to block which means breaking all
contact with the individual, or mute which only prevents you from being exposed
to tweets from the user in question.
These Twitter users prevail and are free to conduct themselves
as they please, it is just that you don’t want to be exposed to these ideas.
These rules apply to every Twitter user including Elon Musk.
Musk has the freedom to block whomever he despises and he has no obligation to
explain why.
Only social media accounts run by the government, do not have
the right to block individuals, because the information they publish is meant
for all citizens. For E.g. Joe Biden's official account cannot block Twitter
users.
Now if Elon Musk uses his power to permanently remove users he
dislikes from Twitter, that is against free expression and undemocratic.
When President Trump was subjected to a coordinated ban across
social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram it was
undemocratic and against the tenets of free expression.
To sum it up we must not conflate choice with freedoms.
An individual may choose to have fish and chips every night
for dinner, that does make him anti-Shepperd’s pie.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment