The scenario between Twitter and Elon Musk has been captivating. Elon Musk became the largest shareholder of Twitter (for a short period of time), was offered and refused a spot on the board, and now has put forward an offer to purchase the company for $43 billion. Speculation has swirled whether this is a publicity stunt, an effort to promote Musk’s vision of speech online, or one of several other alternative theories. Musk, for his part, claimed the proposed takeover is in response to heavy-handed content moderation practices, something he has signaled he wants to change.
Whether that is the true reason for the proposed takeover will continue to be subject to debate and theories, but it is an interesting topic worth exploring. It highlights one of the underappreciated aspects of the foundational internet law known as Section 230. Section 230 shields online intermediaries from being held liable for third-party generated content, as well as for removing certain content. Section 230 is criticized as a way for online platforms to avoid accountability, Musk’s proposed purchase also highlights the importance of content moderation as a business practice.
Some conservatives have stated that social media platforms are simply too dominated by liberal ideology, leading to biased content moderation enforcement and “censorship” of conservative views. Others claim that Twitter and Facebook are the new “public square” and deserve special utility-style regulations to enforce nondiscrimation standards. However, the vocal criticism from the Right has created new, unique business opportunities.
The perceived biases of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media has created an opening for new entrants to challenge these incumbents. Gab purports to be a social network that “champions free speech, individual liberty, and free flow of information.” Rumble, an online video sharing platform, states, “we create technologies that are immune to cancel culture.” Parler, another social media platform, is “built upon a foundation of respect for privacy and personal data, free speech, free markets, and ethical, transparent corporate policy.” These new alternatives to mainstream social media platforms were able to differentiate themselves through their approach to content moderation.
While the First Amendment ultimately protects a company’s decisions relating to content moderation, Section 230 provides enhanced protections by preventing costly frivolous lawsuits. The protections available to online intermediaries small and large also encourage different approaches to content moderation. Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, and Parler all take different approaches to content moderation. This is a feature not a flaw. It provides more choices for consumers and helps foster competition. If harmful content or spam is left untouched, it could leave consumers to leave the platform. The same applies if platforms go overboard with blocking content or removing users.
Utilizing Section 230’s protections, new online platforms are able to get off the ground without immediately being pummeled with lawsuits. Conservatives’ visceral disagreement with major platforms’ content moderation practices has highlighted heightened demand for alternative platforms. Parler, Gab, Rumble, TRUTH, and others are attempting to meet this demand for a conservative alternative social media platform.
Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter has also excited some conservatives who hope he will be friendlier to their speech preferences than the status quo. Content moderation decisions are a critical business tool to help platforms set themselves apart from competitors. Whether a publicity stunt or not, the ability for companies to exercise discretion in what content they want hosted on their platform is an important component of meeting consumer demand. If Musk sees a failure in the market to meet consumer demand, Section 230 protections would be the tool for a new Twitter regime to correct this imbalance.
Everyone has a different definition of what constitutes “harmful” or “unwanted” content. Allowing for platforms to meet consumer demand without the anvil of meritless lawsuits hanging over their head creates a more dynamic market. Whatever becomes of the Musk-Twitter saga, it should be encouraging to conservatives to see the free market working without the long arm of the federal government interfering with business decisions.