It’s a trifle difficult to take Elon Musk at his word.
Here’s the man who bought Twitter for $44 billion and declared it’s about restoring freedom of speech and not money. Noble words no doubt. Except that it comes from someone who had no qualms about a short venture, at no mean cost, into outer space in the middle of the pandemic.
Taking that argument a step further, consider the move is coming in the wake of governments in the West deciding in their resolve to take on the realms of power that tech giants now possess. One major objective of such government initiatives is to try and prevent misinformation, hate speech, and stoking unrest and downright provocation.
It could be that Musk has better plans than Mark Zuckerberg -- who is still smarting from the knuckle wrap handed by a US Senate Committee -- when it comes to putting up safeguards. Facebook, or Meta as it is now, hasn’t gone public with any reassurance that it has addressed the issue of privacy violation. Some measures are now in place to block suspicious posts and content.
On the contrary, bit by bit overt and covert stifling of free speech beyond reasonable safeguards is unravelling. The last vestiges of the neutral media are becoming as evident as the emperor’s new clothes. More and more disillusioned citizens are moving away from traditional media to social media for news and information. The more pleasant aspects of social platforms for interaction are now under assault, transforming them into an almost despicable domain for ulterior intent and content.
Also Read
- Elon Musk's $44bn Twitter buyout challenged in shareholder lawsuit
- Musk says Twitter may charge slight fee for commercial, government users
Almost a decade ago an attempt by the United States to limit or restrict the internet was shot down by the rest of the world. In hindsight, perhaps a longer discussion with the future and not just the present in mind may have been more productive. Free speech has to have its limitations too, just as neutrality has to be embraced not smothered. Neutrality has to be carefully nurtured and built over years so as to gain global acceptability. Scour the media world-wide and there are too many that publicly profess neutrality and sound hollow in their attempt.
To a degree, freedom of expression is allowed generous leeway in many societies. They are the examples coveted by those not as fortunate; then again, there are also alarming trends of restrictions taking place in regions previously considered as flag-bearers of sorts. Opinions, however strong, must be tempered when floated in public domains.
The responsibility lies with the individual as with the state. Donald Trump has been successful in highlighting that fake media, disinformation, and misinformation does exist. That there should be mechanisms where such instances can be called out and steps taken. Knee-jerk reactions don’t help.
They just breed discontent, further disbelief and erode trust. At the end of the day, one-sided versions don’t build public opinion. It contributes to skewed views that are destined for grief.
To quote UN Secretary-General António Guterres: “We must restore human dignity and human decency. We must prevent the death of truth and we must make lying wrong again.”
Mahmudur Rahman is a writer, columnist, broadcaster, and communications specialist.
