Freedom of expression

X, a lone warrior for freedom of speech?

Let’s start with a quote…

‘2024 will be marked by an interplay between change, which is the essence of technological development, and continuity, which characterises digital governance efforts.’, said Dr Jovan Kurbalija in one of his interviews, predicting the year 2024 at its beginning. 

Judging by developments in the social media realm, the year 2024 indeed appears to be the year of change, especially in the legal field, with disputes and implementations of newborn digital policies long in the ‘ongoing’ phase. Dr Kurbalija’s prediction connects us to some of the main topics Diplo and its Digital Watch Observatory are following, such as the issue of content moderation and freedom of speech in the social media world. 

This taxonomic dichotomy could easily make us think of how, in the dimly lit corridors of power, where influence and control intertwine like the strands of a spider’s web, the role of social media has become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, platforms like 𝕏 stand as bastions of free speech, allowing voices to be heard that might otherwise be silenced. On the other hand, they are powerful instruments in the hands of those who control them, with the potential to shape public discourse narratives, influence public opinion, and even ignite conflicts. That is why the scrutiny 𝕏 faces for hosting extremist content raises essential questions about whether it is merely a censorship-free network, or a tool wielded by its enigmatic owner, Elon Musk, to further his agenda.

The story begins with the digital revolution, when the internet was hailed as the great equaliser, giving everyone a voice. Social media platforms emerged as the town squares of the 21st century, where ideas could be exchanged freely, unfiltered by traditional gatekeepers like governments or mainstream media. Under Musk’s ownership, 𝕏 has taken this principle to its extreme, often resisting calls for tighter content moderation to protect free speech. But as with all freedoms, this one also comes with a price.

The platform’s hands-off approach to content moderation has led to widespread concerns about its role in amplifying extremist content. The issue here is not just about spreading harmful material; it touches on the core of digital governance. Governments around the world are increasingly alarmed by the potential for social media platforms to become breeding grounds for radicalisation and violence. The recent scrutiny of 𝕏 is just the latest chapter in an ongoing struggle between the need for free expression and the imperative to maintain public safety.

The balance between these two forces is incredibly delicate in countries like Türkiye, for example, where the government has a history of cracking down on dissent. The Turkish government’s decision to block instagram for nine days in August 2024 after the platform failed to comply with local laws and sensitivities is a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play. In this context, 𝕏’s refusal to bow to similar pressures can be seen as both a defiant stand for free speech and a dangerous gamble that could have far-reaching consequences.

But the story does not end there. The influence of social media extends far beyond any one country’s borders. In the UK, the recent riots have highlighted the role of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta in both facilitating and exacerbating social unrest. While Meta has taken a more proactive approach to content moderation, removing inflammatory material and attempting to prevent the spread of misinformation, 𝕏’s more relaxed policies have allowed a more comprehensive range of content to circulate. Such an approach has included not just legitimate protest organisations but also harmful rhetoric that has fuelled violence and division.

The contrast between the two platforms is stark. Meta, with its more stringent content policies, has been criticised for stifling free speech and suppressing dissenting voices. Yet, in the context of the British riots, its approach may have helped prevent the situation from escalating further. On the other hand, 𝕏 has been lauded for its commitment to free expression, but this freedom comes at a price. The platform’s role in the riots has drawn sharp criticism, with some accusing it of enabling the very violence it claims to oppose as the government officials have vowed action against tech platforms, even though Britain’s Online Safety Act will not be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect and will allegedly serve as a backup in similar disputes.

The British riots also serve as a cautionary tale about the power of social media to shape public discourse. In an age where information spreads at lightning speed, the ability of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta to influence events in real time is unprecedented. This kind of lever of power is not just a threat to governments but also a powerful tool that can be used to achieve political ends. For Musk, acquiring 𝕏 represents a business opportunity and a chance to shape the global discourse in ways that align with his future vision.

Musk did not even hesitate to accuse the European Commission of attempting to pull off what he describes as an ‘illegal secret deal’ with 𝕏. In one of his posts, he claimed the EU, with its stringent new regulations aimed at curbing online extremist content and misinformation, allegedly tried to coax 𝕏 into quietly censoring content to sidestep hefty fines. Other tech giants, according to Musk, nodded in agreement, but not 𝕏. The platform stood its ground, placing its unwavering belief in free speech above all else.

While the European Commission fired back, accusing 𝕏 of violating parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, Musk’s bold stance has ignited a fiery debate. And here, it is not just about rules and fines anymore—it is a battle over the very soul of digital discourse. How far should governmental oversight go? And at what point does it start to choke the free exchange of ideas? Musk’s narrative paints 𝕏 as a lone warrior, holding the line against mounting pressure, and in doing so, forces us to confront the delicate dance between regulation and the freedom to speak openly in today’s digital world.

Furthermore, the cherry on top of the cake, in this case, is Musk’s close contact and support for the potential new president of the USA, Donald Trump, generating additional doubts about the concentration and acquisition of power by social media owners, respectively, tech giants and their allies. Namely, in an interview with Donald Trump, Elon Musk openly endorsed the candidate for the US presidency, discussing, among others, topics such as regulatory policies and the juridical system, thus fueling speculation about his platform 𝕏 as a powerful oligarchic lever of power.

At this point, it is already crystal clear that governments are grappling with how to regulate these platforms and the difficult choices they are faced with. On the one hand, there is a clear need to implement optimal measures in order to achieve greater oversight in preventing the spread of extremist content and protecting public safety. On the other hand, too much regulation risks stifling the very freedoms that social media platforms were created to protect. This delicate dichotomy is at the heart of the ongoing debate about the role of tech giants in a modern, digital society.

The story of 𝕏 and its role in hosting extremist content is more than just the platform itself. It is about the power of technology to shape our world, for better or worse. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the questions raised by 𝕏’s approach to content moderation will only become more urgent. And in the corridors of power, where decisions that shape our future are made, answers to those questions will determine the fate of the internet itself.

Slow internet in Pakistan, government points to VPNs

Pakistan has recently experienced widespread reports of slow Internet speeds, with users struggling to access services like WhatsApp, both on mobile data and broadband. The country’s IT minister, Shaza Fatima Khawaja, attributes the slowdown to the widespread use of VPNs, which are often employed to bypass local network restrictions.

Ms. Khawaja explained that when many users resort to VPNs, it can place additional strain on the system, potentially leading to slower Internet speeds. However, this situation is unprecedented, marking the first time that VPN usage on such a scale has been linked to significant regional Internet slowdowns. Meanwhile, Pakistani IT experts are concerned that the government might use this situation as a pretext to tighten digital surveillance and introduce stricter content filtering.

In her statement, Ms. Khawaja hinted at potential future controls to limit content deemed threatening or defamatory to the state or individuals. While she did not specify whether these controls would involve a nationwide firewall, the minister did mention the government’s plan to auction 5G spectrums next year and to lay new Internet cables connecting Pakistan to the Gulf and Africa, aiming to improve Internet speed and stability.

The debate around VPNs in Pakistan is likely to intensify, especially as the government considers regulating these services by approving specific providers. Such measures could impact millions of VPN users in the country, raising concerns about future access to unrestricted Internet services.

X shuts down operations in Brazil over censorship dispute

Elon Musk’s media platform X announced last Saturday that it would cease operations in Brazil immediately, citing ‘censorship orders’ from Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes. According to X, de Moraes allegedly threatened to arrest one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil if they did not comply with orders to remove certain content from the platform. X shared images of a document purportedly signed by the judge, stating that the representative, Rachel Nova Conceicao, would face a daily fine and possible arrest if the platform did not comply.

In response, X decided to close its operations in Brazil to protect its staff, although the service remains available to Brazilian users. The Brazilian Supreme Court, where de Moraes serves, declined to comment on the authenticity of the document shared by X.

Musk’s decision follows earlier orders by de Moraes to block specific accounts on X as part of an investigation into ‘digital militias’ accused of spreading fake news during former President Jair Bolsonaro’s government. Musk criticised de Moraes’ decisions, calling them ‘unconstitutional,’ and X initially resisted these rulings.

However, after Musk’s objections, X eventually assured Brazil’s Supreme Court that it would comply with the legal orders, although technical issues reportedly allowed some blocked users to remain active. Musk has since condemned de Moraes as a ‘disgrace to justice’ and rejected the judge’s alleged ‘secret censorship’ demands.

TikTok challenges US law over China ties in court

TikTok has contested claims made by the US Department of Justice in a federal appeals court, asserting that the government has inaccurately characterised the app’s ties to China. The company is challenging a law that mandates its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok’s US assets by January 19 or face a ban. TikTok argues that the app’s content recommendation engine and user data are securely stored in the US, with content moderation conducted domestically.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, reflects concerns over potential national security risks, with accusations that TikTok allows Chinese authorities to access American data and influence content. TikTok, however, contends that the law infringes on free speech rights, arguing that its content curation should be protected by the US Constitution.

Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for September 16, just before the presidential election on November 5. As the debate heats up, both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have expressed contrasting views on TikTok, with Donald Trump opposing a ban and Kamala Harris embracing the platform as part of her campaign.

The legislation also impacts app stores and internet hosting services, barring support for TikTok unless it is sold. The swift passage of the measure in Congress highlights ongoing fears regarding data security and espionage risks associated with the app.

Social media Bluesky gains popularity in UK after Musk’s riot remarks

Bluesky, a social media platform, has reported a significant increase in signups in the United Kingdom recently as users look for alternatives to Elon Musk’s X. The increase follows Musk’s controversial remarks on ongoing riots in the UK, which have driven users, including several Members of Parliament, to explore other platforms. The company announced that it had experienced a 60% rise in activity from UK accounts.

Musk has faced criticism for inflaming tensions after riots in Britain were sparked by misinformation surrounding the murder of three girls in northern England. The Tesla CEO allegedly used X to disseminate misleading information to his vast audience, including a post claiming that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ The case has prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to respond and increased calls for the government to accelerate the implementation of online content regulations.

Bluesky highlighted that the UK had the most signups of any country for five of the last seven days. Once supported by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, the platform is among the many apps vying to replace Twitter after Musk’s turbulent takeover in late 2022.

As of July, Bluesky’s monthly active user base was approximately 688,568, which is small compared to X’s 76.9 million users, according to Similarweb, a digital market intelligence firm. Despite its smaller size, the recent surge in UK signups to Bluesky appears to be a growing interest in alternative social media platforms.

Russia blocks Signal messaging app

Russia’s state communications watchdog, Roskomnadzor, has announced a nationwide block on the encrypted messaging app Signal. The restriction, reported by Interfax, is attributed to Signal’s failure to comply with Russian anti-terrorism laws aimed at preventing the use of messaging apps for extremist activities.

Users across Russia, including Moscow and St Petersburg, experienced significant disruptions with Signal, which approximately one million Russians use for secure communications. Complaints about the app surged to over 1,500, indicating widespread issues. While Signal appeared to function normally for some users with a VPN, it was inaccessible for others trying to register new accounts or use it without a VPN.

Mikhail Klimarev, a telecom expert, confirmed that this block represents a deliberate action by Russian authorities rather than a technical malfunction. He noted that this is the first instance of Signal being blocked in Russia, marking a significant escalation in the country’s efforts to control encrypted communication platforms.

Roskomnadzor’s action follows previous attempts to restrict other messaging services, such as Telegram, which faced a similar blocking attempt in 2018. Despite these efforts, Telegram’s availability in Russia remained relatively unaffected. Signal still needs to comment on the current situation.

Meta wins appeal against anti-vaccine group

Meta Platforms (META.O) has successfully defended against an appeal by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging Meta’s censorship of Facebook posts containing vaccine misinformation. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, ruled that CHD did not prove Meta was influenced or coerced by federal officials to suppress anti-vaccine content, upholding a June 2021 decision by US District Judge Susan Illston.

CHD sued Meta in 2020, claiming its constitutional rights were violated when Meta flagged ‘vaccine misinformation’ as false and restricted the group’s advertising on Facebook. Meta argued its actions were part of efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including prohibiting claims that the vaccines are ineffective and directing users to authoritative sources like the World Health Organisation for accurate information.

Circuit Judge Eric Miller, appointed by former President Donald Trump, emphasised that Meta, as a private company, has the right under the First Amendment to regulate content on its platform and promote its views on vaccine safety and efficacy, even if they align with the government’s stance. The court also dismissed claims against the Poynter Institute and Science Feedback, which help Meta evaluate content accuracy.

Children’s Health Defense expressed disappointment with the ruling and is considering further legal actions. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins dissented partially, suggesting that CHD could seek an injunction on free speech claims. However, he agreed other claims, such as those for monetary damages, should be dismissed. The decision underscores the ongoing debate around content moderation and free speech in the digital age.

UK considers revising Online Safety Act amid riots

The British government is considering revisions to the Online Safety Act in response to a recent wave of racist riots allegedly fueled by misinformation spread online. The act, passed in October but not yet enforced, currently allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to remove illegal content, such as incitements to violence or hate speech. However, proposed changes could extend these penalties to platforms that permit ‘legal but harmful’ content, like misinformation, to thrive.

Britain’s Labour government inherited the act from the Conservatives, who had spent considerable time adjusting the bill to balance free speech with the need to curb online harms. A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of adults believe social media companies should be held accountable for posts inciting criminal behaviour, and 70% feel these companies are not sufficiently regulated. Additionally, 71% of respondents criticised social media platforms for not doing enough to combat misinformation during the riots.

In response to these concerns, Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds announced that the government is prepared to revisit the act’s framework to ensure its effectiveness. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also voiced his belief that the law is not ‘fit for purpose’ and called for urgent amendments in light of the recent unrest.

Why does it matter?

The riots, which spread across Britain last week, were triggered by false online claims that the perpetrator of a 29 July knife attack, which killed three young girls, was a Muslim migrant. As tensions escalated, X owner Elon Musk contributed to the chaos by sharing misleading information with his large following, including a statement suggesting that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson condemned these comments, stating there was ‘no justification’ for such rhetoric.

X faces scrutiny for hosting extremist content

Concerns are mounting over content shared by the Palestinian militant group Hamas on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), which includes major companies like Facebook, Microsoft, and YouTube, is reportedly worried about X’s continued membership and position on its board, fearing it undermines the group’s credibility.

The Sunday Times reported that X has become the most accessible platform to find Hamas propaganda videos, along with content from other UK-proscribed terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Researchers were able to locate such videos within minutes on X.

Why does it matter?

These concerns come as X faces criticism for reducing its content moderation capabilities. The GIFCT’s independent advisory committee expressed alarm in its 2023 report, citing significant reductions in online trust and safety measures on specific platforms, implicitly pointing to X.

Elon Musk’s approach to turning X into a ‘free speech’ platform has included reinstating previously banned extremists, allowing paid verification, and cutting much of the moderation team. The shift has raised fears about X’s ability to manage extremist content effectively. Despite being a founding member of GIFCT, X still needs to meet its financial obligations.

Additionally, the criticism Musk faced in Great Britain indicates the complex and currently unsolvable policy governance question: whether to save the freedom of speech or scrutinise in addition the big tech social media owners and focus on community safety?

Great Britain scenario..

Elon Musk faced criticism for his social media posts, which many believe have fueled ongoing riots in Britain. Musk shared riot footage and made controversial statements, including predicting a civil war and criticizing Prime Minister Keir Starmer for focusing on speech policing instead of community safety. The unrest was sparked by false online claims that a Taylor Swift-themed dance class stabbing involved an illegal Muslim immigrant, though the suspect is actually a 17-year-old from Cardiff with Rwandan Christian roots. The misinformation allegedly led to anti-immigrant protests and civil disorder across Britain, with violence targeting mosques, asylum seeker housing, and police. Prime Minister Starmer condemned social media companies, particularly X, for enabling the spread of violent disinformation. Government officials, including Technology Secretary Peter Kyle and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, have vowed action against tech platforms, though Britain’s Online Safety Act won’t be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect.

YouTube faces uncertain future in Russia

As Russia tightens its grip on independent media, YouTube remains a vital platform for free expression, particularly for opposition voices. However, this may only last for a while longer. Recent mass outages reported by Russian internet services signal a possible shift, with lawmakers blaming Google’s outdated infrastructure for the slowdowns—a claim Google disputes.

The video platform, which has served as a key outlet for dissenting opinions, faces potential blocking in Russia. With independent media largely banned, YouTube has become a crucial source of opposition content, such as the widely viewed video by the late Alexei Navalny accusing President Vladimir Putin of corruption.

Experts warn that banning YouTube could severely impact online freedom and disrupt Russia’s internet connectivity. The widespread use of VPNs to bypass restrictions could also strain the country’s internet infrastructure, further complicating the situation.

Why does it matter?

The Russian government has historically throttled internet traffic to silence dissent, but it now relies on a more sophisticated censorship system. Despite the growing pressure, YouTube remains accessible, likely due to fears of public backlash and the potential strain on Russia’s networks.

As Moscow encourages users to switch to domestic platforms like VK Video, the future of YouTube in Russia hangs in the balance. While some non-political content creators may migrate, opposition channels could struggle to maintain their reach if forced off YouTube.