With Musk, Twitter could become a favorite of those who spread disinformation, says expert

An effort by Elon Musk to relax Twitter’s content moderation policies could make the social network a favorite of politicians and influencers who live by spreading disinformation and carrying out attacks.

The assessment is by Carlos Affonso Souza, director of the ITS (Institute of Technology and Society). According to the expert, unlike niche social networks, Twitter allows reaching people from different ideological spectrums, which would make it a more attractive environment for those who adopt this stance.

“For politicians and influencers who need to reach a larger audience, being on Twitter is more interesting than talking to those who are already converted,” he says.

This Monday (25), the company’s board of directors approved the offer of US$ 44 billion (R$ 214 billion) made by Elon Musk to buy the social network.

A staunch critic of Twitter’s policies of moderation, the billionaire describes himself as an absolutist of free speech and has already said that the acquisition is not part of an economic motivation. For him, making the social network a private company is a way of guaranteeing the free flow of ideas.

In Souza’s view, the consequences of this negotiation could be relevant for Brazil.

“As Twitter goes through a process of reviewing its content moderation practices, it can occupy this space that, until then, was designed in Telegram”, he says.

Musk has previously criticized Twitter’s content moderation and account deletion policies. With the approval of the purchase, what changes can we expect? The main change we should pay attention to is in the governance of decision-making about content on the platform. As Twitter becomes Elon Musk’s property, we need to understand what role he, as the owner, will play in decisions about what can and cannot be done.

He has been heavily critical of content moderation policies. He has already said that he is an absolutist in terms of free speech and that the platform has the potential to be a global free speech platform. This is a recipe for tensions with the legal system of other countries. There are speeches that are allowed in the United States, within the concept of freedom of expression, and that are not in other countries — including Brazil.

We can expect, in the future, that a Twitter with less content moderation will be a Twitter that has more friction with the Judiciary and the national government.

Twitter already has a broader understanding of freedom —he, for example, allows nudity. How far can this expansion go with the purchase by Elon Musk? I think Twitter could become the platform of choice for politicians and influencers who live by spreading disinformation and attacks of all kinds. This is because there are already platforms that advertise themselves as social networks with less content moderation and with that they end up gathering a certain audience.

But, especially in Brazil, they never really took off, they never attracted users who are outside a very specific political and ideological spectrum. That’s why buying Twitter is so relevant here. It somehow transports an ideology about freedom of expression and content moderation to a very diverse social network with a very broad user base.

Ultimately this is what politicians need. Niche social networks, without content moderation, are of no interest to anything other than simply communicating with a base they already have. It is preaching to converts. Not on Twitter, a speech by a particular politician reaches users from other spectrums and is heard in a more decisive way.

So here we have an important point, which is to transform Twitter into a very attractive pole for politicians who live from this expedient of disinformation and attacks, because there it will make this discourse reach users who are not yet sensitized by its vision.

This is why the fight for being on Twitter is so important, and why it connects us to Donald Trump [que foi excluído da plataforma em 2021]. On a Twitter with less content moderation and that goes through a process of reviewing its decisions, it is to be expected that the Trump case will be resumed. And, if the former American president returns to the platform, he returns at a propitious moment to boost his communication at a time of building a future presidential campaign.

Would the review of this decision against Trump leave Bolsonaro in a more comfortable position? This makes Twitter a more attractive social network for this type of discourse.

The move to increase the base on Telegram that we saw with the president’s supporters [Bolsonaro] came very anchored not only in the restriction of forwarding messages on WhatsApp, but also [num momento] for greater content moderation across multiple platforms.

Telegram remained a different social network from this group, because the president had content removed on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook…

As Twitter goes through a process of reviewing its content moderation practices, if that happens, it can occupy this space that, until then, was designed in Telegram.

Do you think there could be a rush of Bolsonaristas to Twitter? I wouldn’t say race because this audience is already there, but what we would see is a greater use, precisely because it is a platform that would have a restriction on content moderation.

Now, an important point in Brazil. Transformations do not happen overnight and the Brazilian election is at the end of this year. It remains to be seen whether this transmutation will occur in a snap of the fingers. It is important to understand how long this takes and whether it takes time for Twitter to settle down with this new policy for the electoral context.

Do you believe you can have any impact on this election? We need to wait for the scenes of the next chapters. I don’t see Twitter quickly transforming its terms and operating rules that are written. What may change is the practice of interpreting these rules.

Content moderation is not just about removing a post or tagging a post. It’s also about creating rules and enforcing them. A change in Twitter’s stance doesn’t just mean changing the interpretation of the rules, it can mean changing the rules as a whole, and that takes time.

Can a radical change in moderation policies conflict with regulatory measures in Brazil? It is good to remember that Twitter is not Telegram. Twitter has an established operation in Brazil, and has a history of answering and debating court decisions. We are talking about two very different scenarios. In the debate on the relationship between business and local government, Twitter is light years away [na frente] from Telegram.

What we can start to see are situations in which certain speeches are denounced by users, but Twitter does not take it down — and eventually has a court order that determines the removal of this content. This is a point that will be important to analyze.

Twitter has a history of complying with court rulings. Even in the case of suspension [do perfil do] Alan dos Santos, the minister [do STF] Alexandre de Moraes determined that the account be removed not only from Twitter Brazil, but from the whole world. Twitter objected, but complied anyway.

So there is a practice of the company in Brazil to comply with court orders. The point we have to pay attention to is whether this changes; whether Twitter will start defying local orders in the name of a supposed absolute freedom of expression preached by its new owner.

What exactly is this freedom of expression that Musk defends? It seems to me that it is freedom of expression in the widest possible standards, with minimal restrictions on what can be said and what can be done on a social network.

It is worth remembering that Twitter is an American company and that the United States has a very broad protection of freedom of expression. Certain content, which in Brazil would be classified as hate speech, in the United States is allowed because of freedom of expression.

The concern here is that when Elon Musk says that Twitter needs to be a global platform for free speech, he assumes that there is a monolithic view of free speech, which is simply not true.

The way in which different peoples express themselves goes through conditions that are legal, but also cultural, permeated by technological innovations and the forces of the market itself. It is important to understand that freedom of expression is not a spaceship that hovers above the legal system and society.

Unrestricted freedom of expression may apparently represent more freedom, but it is not necessarily the best exercise of that right.

Do you think Musk’s view on freedom of expression comes close to what happens at Chans? [fóruns anônimos de discussão]for example? Elon Musk has a type of communication on the network that is very similar to the communication of a Chan, with a lot of meme, a lot of trolling. In a way, politics has been built around this type of communication in recent years.

What we’re going to need to pay attention to is how the Chan’s violent language also migrates to Twitter in this new direction.

We can expect the type of communication that Elon Musk uses to become more and more frequent on the platform.

Can changes in favor of less moderation and more freedom of expression on Twitter stop the movement to create their own social networks? In the case of niche social networks, whose main point of attention is the restriction of content alteration, [eu acho que] yes, because then Twitter becomes the preferred place for this type of discourse.

For politicians and influencers who need to reach a larger audience, being on Twitter is more interesting than talking to those who are already converted.

Carlos Affonso Souza, 43

Lawyer, he is director of the ITS (Institute of Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro) and professor at the Faculty of Law at Uerj (University of the State of Rio de Janeiro). He is also a Doctor of Civil Law from Uerj and a researcher affiliated with the Information Society Project at the Yale University School of Law.