Back in the Paleolithic era in April, Elon Musk seemed excited to buy Twitter and said he wanted to transform the site by promoting freedom of speech.
Many things have happened since then. Musk says he doesn’t want to buy Twitter anymore, and the company is urging him to force the acquisition. There was a court hearing today.
Transactions can still occur. In today’s newsletter, we’ll look at three suggestions for what Musk can do if it ultimately owns Twitter and is serious about expanding the boundaries of online expression.
Increase the transparency of Twitter’s internal behavior
Moderating online conversations can be difficult, and Twitter and other social media sites are regularly confused. Moderators make suspicious calls and may not know why a post was deleted or why Twitter took or did not take action.
Understanding and complaining about Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube decisions will increase your freedom and trust online. It requires more investment and openness from Twitter and its peers, and will explain their sometimes difficult decisions about online representation and the easier way for users to appeal to those decisions. ..
Supporters are also proposing Law changes To allow journalists and scholars to analyze what’s happening inside sites like Twitter. Jamesel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said: suggestion On Twitter last week, Musk was able to order an independent audit of the company’s content moderation policies and practices.
Being transparent about Twitter’s internal behavior doesn’t change what people can or cannot say there. But more answers to important questions, such as:Run social media algorithms Suppress a conservative perspective?? How often does Twitter make mistakes by retaining posts that violate the rules or accidentally deleting posts? How about Twitter’s computer system Amplify political content??
Allow more political expression
Some online speech experts say that Mask can build trust in Twitter as a place to foster a lively exchange of ideas by allowing posts from elected US officials and candidates. Told to. Limit discussions on political topics In extreme cases.
It’s difficult to decide when Twitter and other sites will intervene to remove political posts or ban accounts. Before and after the 2020 presidential election, this argument came when many believed that Donald Trump and other officials could afford to post false allegations about fraudulent elections on Twitter. It was seen.
However, the First Amendment to the United States Institute Said It is important for the site to provide community standards of “heavy presumption in favor of stopping political remarks” and “measured response to violations.”
Experts are basically saying about the government and its policies, valuing the statements of elected leaders, even if some of the conversations contain misleading information or prejudices. It means that people will benefit from speaking.It’s not far from Twitter’s policy I already say.
Practical approaches to online political speech are limited. Twitter has attempted to add flawed but valuable contextual information to potentially misunderstanding political posts. And most experts in online representation believe that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube were justified by launching Mr. Trump from their site after last year’s parliamentary riots. (Some of them believe that his suspension should now be lifted.)
Challenge the government to limit the expression of citizens
Rarely in the United States, US Internet companies are in a position to protect the general public from online censorship, harassment, or violent incitement by their governments.But it happens Regularly Outside we..
Twitter may be a strong advocate of citizens who use this service to criticize their leaders. It sued India this month and challenged the government’s interpretation of a law limiting posts related to civil liberties, protests and press freedom. It can do much more.
If Musk is serious about giving voice to people who are far weaker than himself, he can promise to boost when the government seeks to crack down on free speech.
We need to continue to discuss how relatively new means of communication and persuasion work in order to better understand the world.
Before going …
-
Anonymity is the “ultimate double-edged sword.” NGL is the latest app for posting anonymous questions and comments, my colleague Valeriya Safronova wrote. Earlier anonymous messaging apps such as Askfm, Secret, and Yik Yak struggled to contain the threat of bullying and violence and eventually went up in flames.
-
Need is the mother of invention: The Verge writes: Fascinating history A second-generation screen reader, a blind programmer who created a program that speaks aloud text on a computer screen. The inventors, including two who met as children at an Australian music camp, filled the technology gap created primarily by visible programmers.
Related: Some blind and visually impaired people say that automated tools that should facilitate access to websites have made it difficult to use screen readers. My colleague Amanda Morris reported.
Previously from On Tech: “Disability drives innovation”
-
Nepal is fed up with your TikTok video: Some tourists and religious sites in the country have tried to ban people from recording online videos for their reasons. “For them, it’s fun to get everything they like, but for visitors like us, it’s a concern,” said frequent visitors to the sacred gardens of Lumbini. Said Other parts of the world.
Embrace this
Don’t bother to say Dog roaring in a statue..
We want to hear from you. What do you think of this newsletter and what else do you want us to explore?You can reach us ontech@nytimes.com.
If you haven’t already put this newsletter in your inbox, Please sign up here..You can read again Past OnTech column..
