SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for countering digital hate
Musk's X Targeted in First Probe Under EU Digital Safety Law
"The time of big online platforms behaving like they are 'too big to care' has come to an end," one official said.
Dec 18, 2023
The European Commission on Monday announced that it was opening an investigation into X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that was purchased by billionaire Elon Musk a little more than one year ago.
The investigation marks the first under the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires large platforms to limit illegal posts and protect public security, as Reuters reported. It is also possibly the biggest regulatory action against X so far, according to The New York Times.
"Today's opening of formal proceedings against X makes it clear that, with the DSA, the time of big online platforms behaving like they are 'too big to care' has come to an end," E.U. Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton said in a statement. "We now have clear rules, ex ante obligations, strong oversight, speedy enforcement, and deterrent sanctions and we will make full use of our toolbox to protect our citizens and democracies."
"We are delighted that new regulators are flexing their powers to hold social media companies to account."
Since acquiring Twitter in 2022, Musk has been widely criticized for his management of the site, in particular for weakening policies aimed at moderating content and limiting the spread of false information. The site's advertising revenue fell by 60% from August 2022 to August 2023, as Reuters reported. And the platform hemorrhaged even more ad revenue last month after Musk expressed support for an antisemitic conspiracy theory, according to The New York Times.
In a post on Monday, Breton said he was investigating X for "suspected breach of obligations to counter illegal content and disinformation, suspected breach of transparency obligations, and suspected deceptive design of user interface."
In particular, the investigation will consider the process by which X takes down illegal content flagged by E.U. authorities, the effectiveness of its community notes system for countering disinformation, whether the switch in meaning of the blue checkmark—from verified to paid user—is a "deceptive design," and whether it has complied with E.U. language requirements, The Guardian reported. For example, there are reports X only employs one content moderator to cover the Netherlands.
The announcement comes after Breton sent a letter to X, Meta, TikTok, and Alphabet reminding them that they were required under the DSA to limit harmful and illegal content in the wake of Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel, according to Reuters.
Musk responded to Breton on X, challenging him to publicize any violations in the name of transparency.
"You are well aware of your users'—and authorities'—reports on fake content and glorification of violence," Breton replied. "Up to you to demonstrate that you walk the talk."
Responding to the news of the investigation, X said it "remains committed to complying with the Digital Services Act and is cooperating with the regulatory process. It is important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law."
"X is focused on creating a safe and inclusive environment for all users on our platform, while protecting freedom of expression, and we will continue to work tirelessly towards this goal," the company statement continued.
Imran Ahmed, the founder and CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), said on X that his organization had provided the E.U. with information and called the investigation "a good first step."
"CCDH has campaigned for many years for meaningful regulation of social media companies, with transparency as a central pillar, and we are delighted that new regulators are flexing their powers to hold social media companies to account," Ahmed continued in a statement.
The E.U. said the investigation would take as long as necessary, according to The Guardian. If found in violation of the DSA, X could be fined 6% of its global income or barred from the E.U.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook': Watchdog Sued By Musk's X Hits Back
"Musk is trying to 'shoot the messenger' who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he's created."
Aug 01, 2023
The internet watchdog Center for Countering Digital Hate hit back at billionaire Elon Musk Tuesday after X—his company formerly known as Twitter—sued the organization over its research into the dissemination of hate speech on the social media platform.
In a complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco, X accused the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)—a nonprofit with offices in the U.S. and United Kingdom—of "using flawed methodologies to advance incorrect, misleading narratives" and engaging in a series of unlawful acts designed to improperly gain access to protected X Corp. data" after the group published research critical of the social platform's failure to tackle hate speech.
One CCDH analysis found that X failed to remove 99% of hate speech posted by Twitter Blue users, who pay an $8 monthly subscription fee.
"Elon Musk's latest legal move is straight out of the authoritarian playbook—he is now showing he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticizes him for his own decisions and actions," CCDH founder and CEO Imran Ahmed said in response to X's lawsuit.
"The Center for Countering Digital Hate's research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk's ownership and this lawsuit is a direct attempt to silence those efforts," Ahmed continued. "People don't want to see or be associated with hate, antisemitism, and the dangerous content that we all see proliferating on X."
"Musk is trying to 'shoot the messenger' who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he's created," he added. "CCDH has no intention of stopping our independent research—Musk will not bully us into silence."
Since purchasing Twitter for $44 billion last year, Musk has laid off around 80% of the company's workforce, including many content moderators. Last December, the company dissolved its Trust and Safety Council, an independent advisory board of around 100 human and civil rights experts.
Meanwhile, Musk—who describes himself as a "free speech absolutist" even as he allegedly purges left-wing users—has welcomed or reinstated the accounts of white supremacists, anti-LGBTQ+ bigots, election conspiracy theorists, antisemites, and others.
"This is an unprecedented escalation by a social media company against independent researchers. Musk has just declared open war," Ahmed toldThe Associated Press on Sunday. "If Musk succeeds in silencing us other researchers will be next in line."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk Is Absolutely an Enemy of Free Speech
The magnate positions himself as a champion of free and open debate while taking extraordinary efforts to silence any honest criticism and independent research that might negatively impact him or his businesses.
Aug 01, 2023
In Elon Musk’s mind he’s absolutely a free-speech absolutist. He’ll absolutely defend your right to speak out, as long as you don’t criticize him. If you do... well... then you’re out of luck.
To no one is this more evident right now than the good people at the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The nonprofit organization investigates the spread of hate speech across social media, and has devoted much of its recent research to Musk’s many failures since taking over Twitter last fall.
In return for its work, CCDH is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by X Corp., the company that until recently was known as Twitter, claiming that the organization “engaged in a series of unlawful acts” when researching the platform.
“Twitter has made a series of escalating and ever-more-bizarre moves to try to silence or intimidate CCDH. Starting [with] Musk calling the organization ‘evil’ and its CEO a ‘rat,’ then by his office cold-calling the chair of the CCDH Board.”
The lawsuit is just the latest Musk assault on free expression. “Twitter has made a series of escalating and ever-more-bizarre moves to try to silence or intimidate CCDH. Starting [with] Musk calling the organization ‘evil’ and its CEO a ‘rat,’ then by his office cold-calling the chair of the CCDH Board,” a CCDH spokesperson wrote several allies in an email. “Musk’s billionaire bully-boy tactics to try to shut down his critics couldn’t be more at odds with his purported commitment to open and transparent debate.”
These attempts to silence his critics are not surprising to anyone who’s followed Musk’s erratic behavior. The magnate positions himself as a champion of free and open debate while taking extraordinary efforts to silence any honest criticism and independent research that might negatively impact Musk and his many businesses.
Musk has targeted CCDH for exposing how hate and disinformation have mushroomed on Twitter since he took over in late October. That he still considers himself a free-speech absolutist is stunning given his past efforts to silence anyone who questions his motives or criticizes his businesses.
Musk’s taste for shutting down dissenting voices predates CCDH and even his takeover of Twitter. Here’s the history:
Working With China to Censor Critics
As Musk began rolling out sales of Tesla in China in 2021, he and company colleagues became unnerved by a number of consumers who had taken to Chinese social media to complain about issues with the company’s malfunctioning electric cars. Rather than fix the problems, Tesla called on the Chinese government to use its censorship powers to block its critics online.
By the end of the year, the company filed defamation claims against at least two Chinese citizens who raised concerns about the safety and quality of its vehicles, according to Bloomberg.
Firing Employees Who Speak Out
A Tesla employee was fired in 2022 after he posted critical video reviews of Tesla’s autopilot system, including an instance where he had to disengage the function and take control of the car to avoid a possible crash.
Other employees claimed they were fired for reporting racist harassment at several Tesla plants. When one brought his complaints to management at the company, he was fired for “not having a positive attitude,” according to The Guardian.
Helping Repressive Regimes Silence Dissidents
More than his predecessors at Twitter, Elon Musk has gone out of his way to appease repressive regimes seeking to shut down the social-media accounts of their critics. X Corp. has helped India’s Modi government take offline a BBC documentary that criticizes the leadership for inciting religious-based violence against the country’s Muslim population.
Beneath the surface of Musk's free-speech jingoism is a man who is far too willing to defer to repressive regimes. “My preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates,” he tweeted in 2022 in response to those who called on him to defend dissident voices worldwide. He claimed that his Twitter predecessors took the same approach. Except they didn't: Prior to Musk, Twitter frequently took a stand against governments that attempted to silence dissent, calling on these regimes to respect freedom of expression.
Suspending Journalists Who Reported on Musk Critically
In late 2022, Musk suspended the accounts of several high-profile journalists who covered his businesses. To justify this action, he suddenly changed the company’s policies so that he could also bar the account of a person who had been tracking the whereabouts of Musk’s private jet using publicly available information. Most of the journalists who were suspended, including reporters from CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, were merely writing about this suspension and questioning Musk’s supposed allegiance to free speech.
“Musk already has a long track record of trying to silence people he dislikes or speech that is critical of him,” Free Press’ Nora Benavidez told NPR at the time, noting that the suspension of journalists “endangers the broader public’s ability to know what is happening inside Twitter.”
Blocking Access to Twitter Competitors
Just this spring, Musk began suppressing Substack links on Twitter. The newsletter company had earlier announced plans to launch a Twitter-like service called Notes, which allowed people to share short updates to a reverse-timeline feed. The move angered several journalists who were using Substack and Twitter to build large followings for their newsletters and other commentary. (Musk had previously—but temporarily—blocked Twitter users’ ability to link to Mastodon, another competitor.)
“Musk’s attack on Substack is part of [a] pattern, since he bought Twitter in October, to suppress content on an essentially ad hoc basis—from enabling the Indian government to silence dissent to reinstating white nationalists and haphazardly banning journalists,” wrote The New Republic's Prem Thakker at the time.
***
Right now CCDH is Musk’s target. Next week he’ll pick another, someone else who is brave enough to call the billionaire’s bluff, criticize his alt-right politics, or highlight X Corp.’s many failures.
Musk’s habit of bullying those he disagrees with emboldens his many followers to pile on and harass his critics until they go quiet. The danger is not just that anyone speaking truth to power must put up with the increased abuse, including Musk’s own attacks. Groups like CCDH are forced to play defense to a set of hollow accusations, which distracts from the necessary work of holding people like Musk and companies like X accountable to their users.
The headlines are focused on CCDH; they should instead center on Musk and his attempts to turn a popular social-media platform into a weapon he can wield against his foes and anyone who doesn’t follow his reactionary agenda.
The only thing absolute about Elon is his refusal to give a fair hearing to any of his critics. And that’s absolutely not free-speech absolutism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular