The free speech protection of the First Amendment applies to the individual’s right to say what they may wish. However, it does not guarantee them a platform on which to say it nor freedom from repercussions.
In recent weeks, there have been renewed discussions about freedom of speech as related to social media platforms, since Elon Musk cited it as a primary factor in his bid to buy Twitter and take it private. Musk previously had his Tweets removed for spreading misinformation about COVID. He’d also complained when stories about the racism allegedly prevalent in his factories were not removed and when pictures of him before his hair implants, or with the known sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, went viral.
It seems likely then, if Musk were to have control of Twitter, he’d have the ability to say whatever he wanted, but there would likely to be consequences for those who disagree with him or say something unflattering about him.
And it would be well within Musk’s legal right to do so. Twitter is a platform, not a government entity. It doesn’t have to live up to the freedom of speech clause the way the government must. And, unlike newspapers, social media platforms have a special legal designation that removes their responsibility for the content they expose people to. That responsibility largely falls on the individual users who generate and share the content, at least in the U.S.
However, there is an economic reason to still police users’ posts: Too much unpleasantness on the platform will cause users to seek a better social media experience somewhere else. Twitter competitors Mastadon, Twitch, 8Chan, Telegram, Gab, Gettr, TruthSocial, etc., all promote their lack of censorship and have in turn isolated themselves from the majority of users, who prefer not to be exposed to hate speech, extremism, conspiracy theories, nudity and other “not safe for work” content. Even the “trolls” making the upsetting posts find these more open platforms less fun, as the trolls don’t get the reaction they would on more mainstream sites.
That said, social media platforms can — and do — choose what you will see, often with the intent to keep you engaged and on the platform longer, so you will be exposed to more ads and they can generate more revenue.
Researchers have found Facebook’s algorithm serves users a combination of articles that reinforce existing beliefs while it also shows nearly straw-man representations of opposing arguments to keep users angry but engaged. Unlike with Facebook, little is known about Twitter’s algorithm, but Musk has said he will make the algorithm available to the public, so people can know why they are seeing what they do.
Musk’s Twitter takeover will ultimately result in little tangible change. Social media can be a great place for interacting with friends and family — and getting gossip — but it shouldn’t be a place to seek the truth. Even if there is more “free speech” allowed, platforms are incentivized to promote falsehoods and misinformation, because they are shown to receive higher engagement. And higher engagement means more profit for the social media platform.
Musk is nothing if not a savvy business man and will do what he can to make a profit so, despite his initial rhetoric, it is likely that he will bend to economic incentives. For all his promotion of “free speech” online, Musk will likely still do a lot of censoring — at least of others.
