Tech

Twitter, Elon Musk and expel journalists

«Vox Populi, Vox Dei“, Elon Musk said on his Twitter account on November 20. He did so as an apostille after publishing a survey in which he asked ordinary Twitter users if they wanted Donald Trump’s account to be unblocked, once said consultation had ended with 51.8% of votes in favor, compared to the 48.2% who were against. The voice of the people is the voice of God, a phrase that indicates that popular sovereignty is the one that should make the decisions. Another principle with which Musk intended to show us his deep democratic convictions.

As you will remember, two days ago we told you that the new owner of Twitter had decided to delete an account on the social network that was particularly uncomfortable for him, since it tracked the movements of his private jet around the world. The same account that a little more than a month before he had stated that he was not going to ban, thus demonstrating that the defender of freedom of expression did not win even the one who invented the concept.

Although at first it seemed that the reason for the removal was the policy against bots, it later turned out to be the “anti-doxing” policy of Twitter (a rule, by the way, established expressly to justify the closure of this account, as we can read in Vice), and that a stranger would have chased a vehicle in which one of his relatives was traveling (supposedly thinking that he was in it). I’m wondering, at this point, if the jet’s tracking account was also reporting the position of the billionaire’s cars, as well as the taxis, Ubers, and the like that use his environment (just sarcasm, I actually know it didn’t). , since it has even threatened to prosecute those who publish said information.

Did Elon Musk’s jet tracking account have anything to do with the incident that he claims has sparked all of this? Well, it seems unlikely, since this did not occur near any airport where the jet could operate, as we can read in this tweet by Eliot Higgins. The owner of Twitter has not presented a single piece of evidence to support that relationship, but of course, who needs evidence to launch accusations?

Anyway, I’m going to make me buy this justification (not really kidding, but I’m saying it to advance this story) and that, therefore, I accept that the removal of that account has been in accordance with the rules of Twitter and which has been taken for security reasons. But then is when I wonder, is it also a threat to your safety and that of your family that there are journalists and media reporting on it?

I ask because in the last few hours, according to the count carried out by Mashable, Twitter has closed the accounts of Matt Binder of Mashable, of Ryan Mac of the New York Times, of Donie O’Sullivan of CNN, of Drew Harwell of the Washington Post , by commentator and former host Keith Olbermann, freelance journalist Tony Webster, The Intercept’s Micah Flee, Voice of America’s Steve Herman and freelance journalist Aaron Rupar. Nine informants, whom Musk describes as “journalists” (yes, in quotes) that coincide on one point: having published information about the closure of Elon Musk’s jet tracking account.

In addition, to complete the day, Twitter has also closed the account of ADB-S Exchange, the public information service on flight data that used the jet tracking account, those of other users who had posted links to the tracking profiles. of the plane in other social networks. And as a bonus, Twitter has also closed Mastodon’s main profile and has begun to mark all links to that social network as spam, preventing them from being published. Something that coincides, “by chance” (now I put the quotes) with a new growth of Mastodon users collected by Jeff Jarvis.

Twitter, Elon Musk and freedom of expression WHAT?

Lies are like boomerangs, the more force you throw them, the more force they come back against you. Elon Musk began as the owner of Twitter stating that his thing was little less (or maybe even something more) than a crusade for freedom of expression, that he was a true-blooded Democrat and that he came to the social network so that all the voices, even the most critical of him, had a place, that Twitter achieve the status of the great digital agora. He even went so far as to ask that the biggest detractors of him remain as users, that no voice (as long as it complied with Twitter’s rules) would be expelled.

What he didn’t tell us, of course, is that what has a place and what doesn’t have a place on the social network depends on their real… opinions. And this is shown by the fact that in the span of a month he defended the presence of a certain account, then changed the rules so that it was no longer the case, deleted the account and, on the rebound, also those of some journalists (I write it without quotes, not like him) who promptly reported what happened. Free speech does not protect content that Musk I the hypocrite does not like.

It also seems to me that we should spend a moment on the fact, which I have already mentioned, that when referring to the expulsion of journalists from the social network, I have decided to use quotation marks to refer to them. It’s subtle, of course, but it’s not the same to say journalists as “journalists,” and Musk knows exactly what happens when he decides to use quotation marks. It is very easy to understand, it is not the same if someone tells you that you have done something well, as if he tells you that you have done something “right”, right? I believe that this does not require further explanation, and that it shows that the owner of Twitter intends to write a very questionable speech and that he pays attention to details.

Thus, these days on Twitter we have already seen how Musk has raised the first two amendments to freedom of expression:

  • 1st Amendment: If I don’t like a type of content, I will create new rules or modify the rules so that it is no longer allowed and I will close those accounts.
  • 2nd Amendment: If there is a social network that could ever threaten mine, I will close their account and ban their links.

And by the way, you may be wondering why I started this article by quoting Musk when he said “Voice Populi, Vox Dei” and remembering the percentages of the vote on Donald Trump’s return to Twitter, right? Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten about it. If you follow Musk or his activity on the social network, you will have already verified that he is quite fond of setting up surveys and, applying this principle, strictly following their results.

Elon the democrat, the one who has come to bring freedom of expression and democracy to Twitter, the one who says that the voice of the people is the voice of God… except when he doesn’t like what the voice of the people says, in which case the saying seems to change to Vox Musk, Vox Dei, something that fits much more with the personality that he has been demonstrating for a long time. Why? Because this morning he published a first survey, in which he asked about the future of the follow-up accounts that had been expelled. He asked when he would restore them and offered four options: Already, tomorrow, in seven days or later. After an hour, the results were as follows:

  • Already: 43.3%
  • Tomorrow: 4.5%
  • Within seven days: 14.1%
  • Later: 38.1%

So that, Vox Populi He said, by majority, that the unlocking of the accounts should take place today. And what has the very democratic Musk done? Has he already released the accounts? Can we check his jet flights in real time again? Well, the truth is that no. Actually, he has posted a message in which he said “Sorry, too many options. I will redo the survey«. The difference between the most voted option (Now) and the second most voted (Later) was 4.9 points, more than the 3.6 points that separated the Yes from the No on Trump’s return. But of course, in this case the answer was not what he wanted.

It is true that shortly after he published a second poll, this one with only two options, Now and Within seven days (at this moment the first one wins with 58.6% of the votes) but, is it really that four are too many options? ? Does Musk seriously think that Twitter users are lost if they have to choose between more than two? Or is it that he did not like the color that things were taking and he has decided to try his luck with a second round? And if he is so Democratic, why hasn’t he chosen the two most voted options in the first poll?

As a summary version of what has happened in recent days, we can affirm that Elon Musk has shown that his commitment to freedom of expression is as hard as a jelly bean and as long-lasting as a cake at the door of a school. And not only because new rules have been invented to expel an account from Twitter that only a month ago he personally defended, but also because his pulse has not wavered when it comes to blocking the accounts of journalists who reported on it. I want to think that, out of principle, at least he will not dare to speak again about his role or that of Twitter in the defense of freedom of expression, since he has proven to be a first-class censor, but I fear that it is wait too long

And yes, if I have to take sides, I don’t hesitate for a tenth of a second to do so for Binder, Mac, O’Sullivan, Harwell, Olbermann, Webster, Flee, Herman and Rupar, journalists with capital letters and, of course, without quotes. Each of them, individually, has done much more for freedom of expression, without being accompanied by fuss, than Elon Musk has in his entire life, and even more since he owns Twitter.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *