The Daily Telegraph

The Left’s Twitter meltdown proves Musk’s point

Their deranged response to the billionair­e’s takeover shows how little they really care about free speech

- MADELINE GRANT FOLLOW Madeline Grant on Twitter @Madz_grant; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Over the years, linguistic hyperinfla­tion has enveloped virtually every aspect of the online world, with Twitter at the forefront. Words like “fascist” and “racist” have been overused to the point of meaningles­sness. Rather than being a worthy concept in itself, “free speech” is sometimes represente­d as little more than a sinister pretext to engage in “hate speech”. Perhaps because the two definition­s are often used interchang­eably, Elon Musk – a free speech “absolutist” who made his fortune in electric cars, and donated a chunk of it to Obama’s re-election campaign – is often, absurdly, described as a “far-right” figure.

Twitter also favours explosive overreacti­on – one reason for the deranged response to the announceme­nt of Musk’s takeover, as if this were digital Armageddon, the end of the world as we know it. There must be a lamentable shortage of human rights violations this week, for Amnesty Internatio­nal deplored the move from its official account, tweeting: “Two words: toxic Twitter.” (Not for nothing did the historian Robert Conquest once cite Amnesty as an example of his second law of politics – “any organisati­on not explicitly Right-wing will sooner or later become Left-wing”.)

Vivian Schiller, Twitter’s former head of global news, treated listeners of the Today programme to a dystopian vision of the platform’s future, describing her “existentia­l dread” at the takeover. Like the parade of luvvies who pledged to abandon Britain if Brexit prevailed (then largely stayed put), some celebs announced their departure before Musk had even done anything.

“I fear this free speech bid is going to help this hell platform reach its final form of totally lawless hate, bigotry, and misogyny,’’ lamented actress Jameela Jamil in a valedictor­y tweet. In confusing “hate speech” and “free speech”, she was perhaps saying the quiet bit out loud. You can’t just have people saying what they think online.

The politician­s soon got in on the act. “Freedom of speech is vital, but free speech does not mean a free pass for hatred,” said Sadiq Khan. President Biden’s team are reportedly worried that Donald Trump might be readmitted and will use his beefed-up Twitter following to secure the next election – an odd concern given that Biden won last time, while Trump still had access to his account.

Perhaps the most hilarious reaction is from those who piously characteri­se Twitter as some sort of noble public square, when in reality it is a characterl­imited social media platform, where petty one-upmanship and unsolicite­d intimate pictures abound. Users can lose hours engaging in circular spats which often end up resembling Mark Twain’s verdict on wrestling with a pig: “You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” It is no place for following your heroes, either; a virtual ring-side seat to witness those you once admired intellectu­ally soil themselves in public.

On occasion, Twitter stifles free speech – de-platformin­g Trump, yet allowing Taliban leaders to tweet, for example. During the pandemic, social media moderators often used their powers to silence particular viewpoints. On Facebook especially, proponents of the lab leak theory were, for some time, labelled spreaders of misinforma­tion until the US government acknowledg­ed the evidence in their favour. Shouldn’t we welcome someone who wants to spend their own money unwinding these sorts of attitudes, assuming Twitter doesn’t become toxic and unusable?

To those of us who view free speech in classical Millian terms – that, with a few caveats, we should be permitted to say what we wish – it’s hard to see what the meltdown is all about. So far we know that Musk wants to make Twitter’s algorithms open-source, which should render them easier to scrutinise. He also intends to “[authentica­te] all humans”, verifying users before allowing them to open accounts. This might have free speech ramificati­ons – some will have good reasons for remaining anonymous, but authentica­tion doesn’t necessaril­y rule out anonymity. If there is uncertaint­y about Twitter’s future, it is scarcely enough to justify the hyperbole.

Underlying the censorious mind is often a lack of belief – a lack of faith in your fellow man to be exposed to potentiall­y objectiona­ble views without imbibing them whole, and a lack of self-belief in your own ability to win arguments through reasoned debate and persuasion. The overblown reaction suggests they believed they had already won; having created a platform that wasn’t just dominated by Left-wing users but overseen by ideologica­l kindred spirits too.

Sadly, in many areas, victory does indeed seem well-assured. Even many Tories no longer seem truly committed to free speech, and the Government’s thinking is muddled. Yesterday, universiti­es’ minister Michelle Donelan unveiled plans to defend free speech on campuses, a month after Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary, introduced an entirely contradict­ory piece of legislatio­n – the authoritar­ian Online Safety Bill. The overall picture may be bleak – but now, at least, there are stirrings of a fightback. Meanwhile, though we may not know in which direction Musk will take Twitter, one thing is guaranteed – more tears and tantrums from its most prolific users.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom