Conflict of interest

Taking Twitter private will not help free speech

Elon Musk, who describes himself as a free speech absolutist, has made an unconventional attempt to take Twitter private. His rationale: Twitter can perpetuate free speech and reach its “true potential” only if it is a privately owned, unlisted entity.  Mr Musk suggests the platform should offer an edit feature (Twitter claims it’s been working on this for months); it should run on an open-source algorithm (users would then know why they are seeing whatever is displayed on their personal feed); have no ads (removing the major revenue stream); less content moderation; and a higher bar for deleting offensive tweets. Despite a handsome premium over market value, the offer is likely to fail. Twitter has set up a “poison pill” with a resolution that allows the issue of fresh shares to other shareholders at a discount if Mr Musk’s stake exceeds 15 per cent before April 14, 2023. 
 

Mr Musk has also deliberately bypassed the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory requirements by not setting a formal date with a term sheet outlining his financing for the offer, and his intentions in making it. It’s been suggested he is interested in pushing up the price of his existing 9.1 per cent stake, rather than taking control. It is hard to take Mr Musk’s public statements on free speech at face value. As CEO-founder of SpaceX, Tesla, and Starlink, Mr Musk would be subject to conflicts of interest if he owned Twitter: If any regime where his other businesses had exposures objected to some specific content, he would be under pressure to delete that content, or suffer consequent losses. Given that Mr Musk’s businesses offer satellite services and sell cars in multiple authoritarian regimes, it is hard to see him ignoring such considerations. As a publicly listed company, Twitter has a content moderation policy, subject to ratification by the board and shareholders, apart from being subject to local laws. As a platform owned by one individual, its content would remain subject to the same laws, and to whatever internal controls that such an individual set up.

A broader question also arises: What is free speech and what are reasonable curbs? Every nation has some restrictions, even the most liberal regimes such as the US and the Scandinavia countries. For example, hate speech, inciting violence against persons or communities, is banned in most places. Glorification of Nazism is banned in Germany. Child pornography is banned everywhere.  Most nations with personal data protection laws also ban public release of private personal information (known as “doxxing”) online, which can lead to individuals being targeted in various ways. Many nations, including India, have laws banning content insulting religious beliefs, or potentially leading to communal disharmony. Twitter (and Mr Musk if he owns Twitter) has to abide by such laws, or risk the service being banned.

In the wake of lies, which led to rioting after former US president Donald Trump claimed he had lost the 2020 election through fraud, Twitter started flagging such content as untrue, and removed Mr Trump. Medical misinformation spread through social media has arguably led to many Covid deaths and also deserves to be flagged. Twitter’s content moderation could surely improve — its current policies can be gamed, and it often geoblocks or “ghosts” specific accounts, which are critical of specific regimes. But having a single private owner would scarcely improve the free speech profile, especially if that individual has glaring conflicts of interest.