“The answer to bad speech, we are told, is more speech. The only way that tired bromide could be true, though, would be if it were possible for the bad speech to be definitively rejected through reasoned argument. That is to say, free speech can only be the solution if the result of the ongoing debate can be some kind of progress where certain ideas are tested, found wanting, and then ruled illegitimate.”

I’ve recently engaged in a few discussions surrounding Elon Musk’s purchase of twitter and the resulting free speech shit storm that followed in its wake.

The recent article in Jacobin, written by Ben Burgis, pretty much sums up my feelings on this matter. I’ve remarked online and in-person on numerous occasions that Facebook and Twitter should be socialized and collectively owned. The way things are structured currently, though, tech companies seem to be able to do pretty much what they want, they can pull stuff down that appears to them to be disinformation (after all private enterprises are little more than tiny empires, capitalism is essentially feudalism 2.0; this is something else I’ve said quite a bit before). I agree with Burgis in that it’s sad we live in “the kind of capitalist hellscape where the only hope for reasonable norms protecting free speech online is that we get lucky and the right *kind* of billionaire purchases our digital public square.” It honestly shouldn’t be that way. I do think social media is important as a digital public square. And again, I agree with Burgis in that “I would be infinitely more comfortable with such decisions [regarding how strict free speech rules should be] being made in the public sector, where they can be subject to democratic debate and deliberation, than I am with just placing our faith in the whims of one deeply unimpressive oligarch. Free speech matters far too much to be entrusted to such people.”

Additionally, during my free speech discussions the liberal slogan of “defeat bad speech with better speech” inevitably came up. I don’t completely disagree with this idea as I do think it’s possible to undo hate speech, for instance, with counter speech and things like transparent curation. However, I also think Adam Kotsko (quoted above and below) makes an astute point here:

“The answer to bad speech, we are told, is more speech. The only way that tired bromide could be true, though, would be if it were possible for the bad speech to be definitively rejected through reasoned argument. That is to say, free speech can only be the solution if the result of the ongoing debate can be some kind of progress where certain ideas are tested, found wanting, and then ruled illegitimate.”

So in other words, as Kotsko indicates, we shouldn’t go around pretending like history never happened. And in my opinion this kind of applies to a wide swath of conservative philosophy, actually, since much of it, at root, as political philosopher, Cory Robin has pointed out, seems to be premised on the notion that inequalities are necessary because there are greater and lesser beings in the world, and any attempt to topple social hierarchies both threatens established power relations and destroys the basis of civilization. Conservatism seems to me to be an inherently violent ideology and it’s kind of baffling to me why we need to still go around debating the idea that unequal relationships in society are NOT essential to the preservation of human excellence and greatness.

All that to say to say this: Maybe twitter will be better now that Musk owns it. Who knows! But I have little sympathy for conservative pundits, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Milo Yiannopulos, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, et al, who were banned from twitter for doing/saying things that were directly in-line with, and a result of, their conservative ideologies.

Tags:adam kotskocapitalismCorey Robinelon muskfree speechtwitter