Social media users angry at man who bought platform so people can freely be angry at him

The definition of free speech has once again returned with questions around limiting free speech in order to maintain it.

Following the news that Elon Musk had purchased Twitter, the internet went into outrage over whether or not people who say things they don’t like would or should be allowed to say them again.

A UK government spokesperson said that companies operating in the UK and Europe who use the platform must adhere with new online safety laws that require social media platforms to protect users from harmful content, which is reasonable enough.

But many users reacted to the news of the takeover with the distress of a dystopian drama around concerns Musk’s commitment to free speech would lead to a loosening of restrictions on content and opinions they disagree with. While Musk’s plans are unclear, he has advocated for temporary “time-outs” for users who breach Twitter’s policies, rather than permanent bans of users.

It’s been apparent for some time now that Twitter has enabled words to take on a whole new meaning.

Understanding the economy means you are fascist. Not being an ethnic minority means you are an immediate suspect of racism. Free speech is actually hate speech in disguise. Disagreeing with different views is an attack on personal identity. Over-reacting is acceptable in the name of a valiant cause nobody can actually explain or define.

Politicians, celebrities, even entire organisations disintegrated into a Twitter meltdown (which they expressed on Twitter). While the platform has become a haven for arguing, it has been overrun with less reasoned debate and persuasion and more tears and tantrums.

One MSNBC host who simply should not lack this much self-awareness ranted about the risks of what Musk could do to Twitter – and ended up describing Twitter right now:

“You could secretly ban one party’s candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election.”

So it all boils down to one thing.

Allowing people to have access to a platform that is designed around the freedom to say things is a disaster because you just can’t allow people who have an objectionable opinion that grates against the popular one (within the boundaries of user protection) to express that.