In Elon Musk’s recent interview with TED’s Chris Anderson, Musk described himself as a free speech “absolutist” in explaining his desire to buy Twitter. There are two general kinds of free speech absolutists: those who believe free speech can only be limited when there is a clear public danger (for instance falsely claiming fire in a public theater), and those who believe that free speech is unlimited with respect to politics but not most other topics.
Critics of free speech absolutists advocate a “balancing approach,” in which any restrictions on speech should be judged by weighing the interest in unfettered expression against other social and individual interests, such as protecting against obscenity, threats of injury, and incitement to illegal action. This balancing view has been generally endorsed by the Supreme Court.
Thus, Musk’s offer for Twitter seems, at least in part, premised on the idea that Twitter is limiting too much speech, and has adopted a philosophy that is too restrictive. Musk has suggested that Twitter could be improved by the company publicly disclosing its algorithms promoting certain posts, and giving users the ability to edit their posts after the fact.
There is a natural tendency to think this is primarily a debate about politics and law, and how to allow minority or unpopular opinions to be heard. To this end, Musk also mentioned that his acquisition of Twitter is for the good of mankind, and his primary focus is not to make money.
Still, a necessary implication of Musk’s position is that he believes Twitter is missing out on acquiring users who share his view of free speech, and would appreciate the kinds of changes to the platform he is proposing. Further, if Twitter does not make such changes, other online platforms will adopt such practices and “absolutist users” will flock there instead.
As TED’s Chris Anderson recognized in some of his follow-up questions of Musk, online platforms have to make millions of decisions on how its free speech principles would be applied to millions of different situations. Musk replied that he would adhere to the laws of each country, but whenever possible, he would veer in favor of allowing the speech.
It stands to reason that there will be a great diversity of views among business leaders on how to implement a free speech policy, with different variations on a variety of issues. One could call this a political question, but in business, it is also a question of competitive differentiation.
There may be consumers who agree with Musk, others who embrace the balancing approach, and others who believe in something different altogether. A basic competitive analysis would ask which group has the greatest number of potential users, as it seems unlikely that there will be a platform that can be all things to all people, especially in this political environment.
Some platforms have adopted “warnings” or “moderators/mods” to implement their philosophies, whereas others have primarily marketed themselves to users who have political views that they believe have been inappropriately screened or edited elsewhere. These are all strategies to capture users an online business believes is the core/target audience of their product.
One platform’s core audience may perhaps be smaller than the base of other platforms, but a deeper analysis could reveal that certain users are more likely to give the platform access to information that drives profitability. For instance, an audience that is less focused on privacy may be monetized more easily by targeted advertising. On the other hand, a platform that believes in more curated content may give users confidence and trust in the company, leading to a longer and more profitable relationship.
Given the ability to innovate and adjust quickly in the online space, there will be many opportunities for business leaders decide which position or positions on free speech will drive the most traffic. One platform’s policy on an issue of mass appeal could meaningfully differentiate it from another platform, and swing fortunes in the process.
Musk’s statements to date may be designed to appeal to an audience that either agrees with his philosophy or at least wants to follow his efforts. Regardless of whether Musk’s bid for Twitter is successful, the fact that public discourse is occurring on how free speech should be implemented may have been the point all along.
