The News
Elon Musk’s fight with Brazil over content on X has led to the suspension of the platform in the country. But Brazil’s government is not alone in trying to limit tech companies, or in holding their leaders responsible to some degree for what happens on their websites and apps.
Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” is a main character, in part because of the global nature of X, and because he is personally outspoken and willing to fight his battles on X itself.
There are other actors: France opened a probe into Telegram and charged its CEO, Pavel Durov, over Telegram’s failure to curb illegal content, while the EU has enacted sweeping laws to limit tech platforms. Meanwhile, individual US states have introduced rules to limit younger users online.
SIGNALS
Elon Musk’s ‘free speech absolutism’ is less absolute than it appears
Despite Musk’s stance on free speech, he has taken different approaches when faced with content takedown orders in different countries, Al Jazeera and others have noted. While he has pushed back against orders from Brazil and Australia, he didn’t appear to fight similar requests from India and Turkey, which also demanded the removal of content unfavorable toward their countries’ leaders. Some of the billionaire’s critics have argued that his free speech evangelism only applies to political figures he agrees with: “Musk has found a cause that lets him articulate his twisted vision of free speech: Not free speech for democratic activists, or for regular people, but for people who share his politics,” a disinformation researcher told The Washington Post.
European Union’s sweeping tech laws attempts global policing
The EU has two major laws regulating tech companies — the DSA, which covers online content, and the DMA, which covers their business. The EU was “quick to make an enemy of Musk” after the billionaire bought X in 2022, UK outlet Private Eye noted, with the Commission saying Musk’s takeover increased the spread of malicious content on the app. X now faces a hefty fine for failing to comply with the DSA, and other platforms have been similarly threatened. Critics say the EU goes too far: “How does the European Union have the right to enforce fines on California-based companies’ revenue generated in New York, Tokyo, and Rio? It makes zero sense,” finance news website Sherwood wrote.
In the US, a battle is being fought over what constitutes free speech
In the US, The First Amendment has continuously caused debate over what constitutes free speech, and the same is true on social media. Some critics, particularly on the political right, contend that content moderation is censorship. Big tech companies have also historically been shielded from legal liability for content on their platforms by a 1996 law, Section 230. An ongoing lawsuit is attempting to repeal it and give users more power over their social feeds, The New York Times noted, with one expert saying that could help evade two potential “dystopias”: “On the one hand, a small coterie of corporations having excessive control over the digital public sphere, and on the other the government having the sweeping authority to set the terms and rules of this environment.”