Chapter 1: The Vision of Free Speech

“I wish even my most vocal detractors would stay on Twitter, because that’s what true free speech entails.” These words from Musk, who claims to be a staunch advocate for free speech, encapsulate his motivations for purchasing Twitter. (Aside from the fact that a thoughtless joke cost him dearly.) According to one of his over 1.2 million tweets posted in recent months, Musk believes in the necessity of a shared digital space where diverse opinions can be discussed constructively.

This is certainly an admirable intention. However, just a couple of months into his high-profile acquisition, which he dubbed “freeing the bird,” Musk’s actual interpretation of freedom of expression on the platform is becoming increasingly apparent.

We can express our thoughts—until they annoy the man in charge.

The bird is no longer free.

Let’s face it: if you owned a social media platform, you might be tempted to manipulate the rules to eliminate accounts that irritate you. After all, you’re in control. Who would challenge your authority? It could even be tempting to create new regulations that justify banning certain users.

Yet, if you genuinely believed in free speech, your ethical standards would prevail.

Not in Musk's case.

One account he desperately wanted to eliminate was [@]ElonJet, which utilized publicly available information to track the real-time locations of Musk’s private jet. The lavish use of a private aircraft often reflects poorly on its owner, something that celebrities like Kylie Jenner can attest to, especially when it leads to questionable destinations.

Frustrated, Musk attempted to bribe the account's owner, but when that failed, he resorted to a more drastic measure: he declared doxxing illegal, effectively banning the ElonJet account, along with its owner, Jack Sweeney.

For those who may not know, doxxing involves searching for and publicly sharing private or identifying details about someone on the internet.

This discussion isn’t about whether tracking jets is appropriate. Many argue that since the data is public, it should be fair game. It can be viewed as a form of citizen journalism, shedding light on the environmental impact and extravagant lifestyles of executives, tech leaders, and celebrities. Conversely, those whose jets are being tracked contend it endangers them. Both perspectives hold some truth, and I find myself uncertain about my stance. However, what transpired next led this saga into unfamiliar territory, and I have a firm opinion on it.

Shortly after the doxxing ban was announced, several prominent journalists were suspended without any warning or explanation. All of these individuals were critical of Musk. Some had shared links to the tracker, while others directly criticized Musk or argued that certain accounts were not engaging in doxxing at all. Regardless of the reasons, Musk discarded his free speech principles in favor of silencing dissenting voices.

Then, the Mastodon account was banned. Although it hosted the jet tracker, it had also become a competitor to Twitter. Its rapid growth was fueled by those fleeing Twitter, making it convenient for Musk to find a reason to ban any promotion of the platform. Even links to Mastodon accounts are now being flagged as dangerous, leaving many users uncertain whether sharing them—especially if they are well-known—will result in their own accounts being suspended.

In a final wave of censorship, some of the banned accounts realized they could join a Spaces event. Musk himself participated, but after some tense exchanges, he exited the event when pressed. Almost as if on cue, Spaces crashed and became inaccessible to most users.

Coincidence? I think not.

What a chaotic situation.

Twitter is becoming increasingly unstable, and this trend of bans is deeply concerning. Many speculated that Musk’s leadership could embolden extremists and far-right elements, and unfortunately, that prediction has largely come true. Incidents of racial and homophobic slurs have surged. Previously banned accounts, like Trump’s, have been reinstated, though he hasn’t tweeted since.

We at least hoped there would be room for essential counterarguments to cut through the noise and provide accountability and truth. However, even that seems to be at risk now. What’s next? Will there be a ban on Santa Claus trackers? Restrictions on tweeting about the stock decline of a certain electric vehicle company? Prohibitions on using Musk’s name? A Twitter police force to eliminate anything deemed offensive by the overlord? Is there even a moderation team left?

This could mark the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Yet, there remains a glimmer of hope, albeit a slowly fading one.

In line with his vision of a digital town square, Musk often turns to polls for guidance on platform decisions. His latest poll indicates that 58% of users want the reinstatement of banned accounts. This comes after an earlier poll also favored reinstating these accounts, which Musk deleted due to having "too many options."

For now, he seems to be heeding public sentiment and acting according to user preferences. He has already reinstated most of the banned accounts since I began writing this article. (The point still stands, though, as he has now suspended another journalist without explanation.)

Perhaps his approach to community input will help him rectify some of his more concerning decisions. However, it seems more likely that he will eventually abandon this framework and act recklessly. Given what we have witnessed over the past two months, this is a frightening prospect—not just for the platform and its users but for the fundamental right to free expression.

Chapter 2: The Implications of Censorship

In this chapter, we will explore the broader implications of Musk's actions and the potential impact on public discourse.

Elon Musk - Why I Wage War Over Free Speech: This video delves into Musk's motivations for his controversial decisions regarding free speech and censorship on social media platforms.

EU Regulation of Big Tech: Is Free Speech at Risk?: This discussion raises important questions about how regulatory frameworks may affect freedom of expression in the digital age.