By Charles C. W.
Cooke
Monday, April
25, 2022
Elon Musk has bought Twitter and
intends to take it private. The purchase, Musk says, is designed to unlock the
service’s “potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe.” In
making this move, Musk is honoring the original architects of the Web, who
abhorred the idea of rigorous moderation, and sought a system that regarded
“censorship as damage” and automatically “routed around it.”
If Musk is to succeed in this endeavor, he
ought to take three immediate steps to improve the platform. First, he should
replace Twitter’s vague guidelines with a long list of more specific rules. I
know, I know — that sounds paradoxical. Usually, I am of the view that the
fewer the rules, the better the outcome for liberty. But, in this case, I
suspect that the opposite is true. “Don’t Be Evil” might be a good policy for a
society that agrees upon the nature of “evil,” but, in one that does not, it is
next to useless. As a result, Musk ought to insist on a larger set of narrower
limits — “You may not threaten to kill another user” — and to assiduously avoid
any of the broader concepts that have been captured and corrupted by the
DEI-types that are ruining the American workplace. Twitter should not promise
to protect “dignity,” or to avoid “harm,” or to uphold “equality.” It should
not vow to keep people “safe,” or to outlaw “hatred,” or to combat
“misinformation.” Hell, given the absurd hierarchies of immutable characteristics
that progressivism has imposed, it should not base any rules on race, gender,
or religion, either. Instead, it should focus on the specifics. “You may not
publish another user’s physical address” is a good rule. “You may not use
Twitter in the commission of a crime, as determined by a court” is a good rule.
If certain words are to be verboten, Musk should list them. Sure, a Terms &
Conditions page with 500 items on it would be a touch unwieldy, but it would
ultimately be less of a problem than having five intrinsically vague statements
that accord carte blanche to the spoiled children of Oberlin.
Having set these narrow and concrete
rules, Musk’s second step ought to be to fire pretty much everyone who has ever
been involved in Twitter’s content moderation. Over the past few years, Twitter
has provided Americans with a perfect example of the old adage that “personnel
is policy,” and, clearly, Twitter’s existing personnel cannot be trusted. One
could put together the greatest guidelines that have ever existed on the
Internet, but if the people who are charged with interpreting and executing
them are biased lunatics, they’ll make no difference whatsoever. Going forward,
every employee at Twitter must be asked, bluntly, “Are you in favor of free
speech, even when you hate that speech?” If the answer is “No,” they should be
asked to leave. There is no reason whatsoever for a “platform for free speech
around the globe” to employ people who oppose free speech around the globe.
Finally, Musk ought to dramatically
increase transparency. At present, Twitter is an infuriating black hole for
everyone except the famous and well-connected. If a user is banned from the
service, he should be told exactly why. Before he is banned, he ought to be
warned, told why he has been warned, and informed about the likely consequences
of repeat behavior. And if Twitter is to have an appeals process, it ought to
be staffed by real people, rather than by algorithms that make instant
decisions and then lie to you about the “careful review” that went into the call.
Insofar as those algorithms are necessary — it is probably impractical to
humanize everything — the (non-security-based) variables that
have been plugged into them ought to be made public, so that users are aware of
where the thumbs are on the scale. In concert, Twitter ought to commit to
publishing any correspondence it has with elected officials. If the White House
has “reached out” — as the Biden administration often has —
Twitter’s users ought to know about it. Twitter is a private company, and it
can do whatever it likes, but the equation changes a little when the people who
regulate Twitter are also putting political pressure on it, and the public
ought to know exactly what that pressure looks like.
Beyond that, I will only say “Good luck.”
Terrified as they clearly are by the prospect of open speech, a lot of powerful
people will be rooting against Musk, and some will even try to sabotage him.
Thankfully, he’s unlikely to give a toss — which, of course, makes him exactly
the right person for the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment