The technology industry has dropped free speech. With only one exception, the most influential movers in Silicon Valley are now on a side that sees censorship as a necessary and just tool to fight, as they understand it, falsehoods, hate speech, and potential violence. And that side has all but won the argument within the Techtopus. The exception is one of the most popular and successful members of the industry, who is also one of the wiliest: Elon Musk, the big-thinking entrepreneur and CEO of both SpaceX and Tesla, among other ventures.
The tech industry holds an extraordinary amount of control over how the public talks to itself. They wield their power by dictating the terms of not just what we can say but also how we can say it. In the virtual world, as few people deal with limited access to information, the tech platforms decide what is said.
Up until recently, people could find like-minded individuals via sites such as Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and so forth. These places were wonderful. We could banter. We could argue. We could say nasty things! But we could say whatever the hell we wanted. They were, as they were originally intended to be, “free-speech zones.” Then came some Beltway signaling, and the digital era Segregationist Screamers came out of their previously paletted corners to start language-policing “Dissenter Speech.”
Throughout history, Silicon Valley has consistently supported the belief that the internet is a stronghold for the prevalent freedom of expression. The individuals of yesteryear—those who were known to us now as the early pioneers—actually believed in the unfettering power of digital platforms. When these people built the first forms of social media, they did so with a precept in mind: We can and will build an unfettered space for the human voice to be heard. For these pioneers, the command and control over what can be shared and seen is anathema to our human values.
The world has changed a lot in the past few years, and so have our tech companies. More and more, these businesses are enacting policies meant to limit what can be said under their virtual roofs. They usually have good reasons for doing so. Misinformation, bullying, and other kinds of harmful speech really do have a way of damaging the lives of the people on the receiving end—both online and off. And, as the line between online and offline life blurs, the damage can follow a person from the keyboard to their very own kitchen. These companies, by and large, think they have a calling to change all that—even if it means taking away the rights (or perceived rights) of some in order to protect the many.
An example of this is Reddit and YouTube, which deserve criticism for their flimsy management of politically related content. After the 2016 US presidential election was tied up in a period of uncertainty followed by the victory of Donald Trump, the platforms promised to do better, and they have implemented a series of measures officially intended to counter misinformation. But their heavy hand during this election season, for example, borders on totalitarianism. In that certain views are simply not allowed to exist.
Elon Musk stands out in the tech industry as a figure who values and champions free speech. In a field that is often seen as a place where voices are muzzled, Musk more than any other CEO in the pantheon of big tech not only speaks out for maintaining a platform for open dialogue but also takes action to create such a space. Musk’s acquisition of what is now called X and his subsequent moves to reduce the chill on free speech is worthy of praise.
Elon Musk’s handling of the topic of free speech is, however, a matter of contention. His attitude toward content moderation, some say, is too laid-back, creating a situation where harmful untruths and ugly exchanges can and will multiply on his platform. But Musk appears to be a believer in the solution that is found not in regulating or vast monitoring schemes but in letting human beings, including the lunatics, exercise their rights.
The entire technology industry, it would appear, is moving in the other direction. It is embracing the idea of using substantial content moderation policies to police the online spaces that ordinary citizens—meaning anyone who is not an employee of the technology industry—can inhabit. In that space, critical thinking goes on hold; emotions override. At the same time, the companies doing this expect us to believe that the stringent policies they are enacting have no effect on speech acts (and, by extension, the listeners of said acts)?
Alternatively, the way the tech industry now sees free speech is very different from the way it was first imagined. The industry’s current drive to be rid of harmful content is both noble and necessary. Yet it seems also to be delivering a hit to the canvas of live-and-let-live communication that has heretofore abided in this sector. Will social constraints that prevent tech leaders from expressing their views—however foolish or objectionable—on non-work platforms really make tech a safer or better space for workers and denizens alike? It’s hard to see how.
3 Comments
Test comment
Odlfkfnfnrlrl
Krlr