Let’s address the two questions I left hanging, in order:
- AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WOULD MUSK BE ABLE TO RESIST THE CALLS FOR CENSORSHIP BY THE LEFT AND RIGHT? With the left, Musk would be a hostage to events; if an insurrection or mass murder or some other disaster that could be tied directly to Twitter occurred, the calls for reform would be very loud indeed. The right, on the other hand, is going to try to expand the government’s power to override the owners of the internet companies and impose censorship on the woke left. It hasn’t happened yet, but it will. That’s the regulatory frontier for reactionaries. You’re already seeing a version of it in authoritarian states.
The best possible censorship option is an open, transparent, and democratic system, but, given the lack of trust between the right and left in our society, relying on independent billionaires may be our best option at the moment. Let’s face it–wouldn’t you prefer Musk to DeSantis?
2. CAN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERNET? Publishers and editors acted as gatekeepers during John Stuart Mill’s day. There were different gatekeepers in 20th century America, but they still existed. Musk’s vision of the internet doesn’t really include any, which pretty well guarantees that Twitter will turn into a cesspool of extremism and fraudsters.
As I noted in my last post, Musk clearly believes that the truth will prevail in an open and fair fight over the long run, and that lies and garbage will be driven out. That kind of optimism is quintessentially American, and is in our nation’s DNA; even I feel it on occasion. But our country has a short history, and has been fortunate to be separated from danger by two oceans. The experience of other nations, and our own during the Trump years, suggests to me that Musk’s optimism is misplaced. Lies and libels circulate too fast on the web to be contained without censorship, and the results can be catastrophic.