Elon Musk appears to have convinced the Twitter masses that he is their champion of free speech, with his recent appearance on the BBC providing yet another opportunity to burnish his bona fides in this regard.
“Who’s to say that something is misinformation?” Musk asked the BBC’s befuddled interviewer, “Who’s the arbiter of that?”
Good point and fair enough.
But the problem with this and all of Musk’s critical remarks about the very notions of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ is that Elon Musk’s Twitter is itself a signatory of the European Union’s so-called ‘Code of Practice on Disinformation’ and ‘the Code’ requires platforms like Twitter precisely to censor ‘mis-‘ and ‘disinformation’.
And ‘require’ here means require: as discussed in my previous articles here and here, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) renders the commitments undertaken in the Code mandatory on pain of massive fines. As I have likewise documented in those articles, Elon Musk has repeatedly flagged not only his compliance with, but indeed his full-throated approval of the DSA.
How in the world is he able to square that circle?
Furthermore, Twitter is even a member of a Permanent Task-Force on ‘disinformation’ that has been set up under the Code and that meets at least every six months, as well as in sub-groups in between the plenary sessions (see Section IX of the Code, which is available here).
The task-force is chaired by none other than the EU’s executive body, the European Commission: the very same European Commission that the DSA invests with the exclusive power to assess compliance with the Code and apply penalties if a platform is found to be wanting.
Who is to say something is misinformation, who is the arbiter of that? Well, there you have it. In the case of Twitter and all the platforms cooperating with the EU, the European Commission is the arbiter of that, since it is the Commission that will decide if Twitter and the other platforms are doing enough to combat it.
So, here is my question for Elon Musk: What exactly are you or your representatives doing in the EU’s Permanent Task-Force on disinformation?
In a much celebrated Twitter bon mot, Musk said: “People who throw the disinformation word around constantly are almost certainly guilty of engaging in it.” Okay. Well, what are you or your representatives discussing in the Permanent Task-Force then? Wouldn’t it be ‘disinformation’? Because discussing ‘disinformation’ and how to ‘combat’ it to the EU’s satisfaction is the whole point of the task-force!
For example, from the preamble to Section IX of the Code:
(e) Signatories recognise the importance of involving relevant experts in the activity of the Task-force, and of organising exchanges with third-party stakeholders to keep them updated and gather their insights related to the disinformation phenomenon.
(f) Signatories recognise the importance of assessing the impact and success of the Code of Practice against the spread of Disinformation. As such, within the first year of the Code’s operations, Relevant Signatories will work together with the Task-force… to develop a first set of Structural Indicators…
And so on and so forth.
Furthermore, what sub-groups on specific issues is Twitter participating in, per Commitment 37.4 of the Code?
To what extent has the European Commission or perhaps the European foreign service (the EEAS), which is also present in the Permanent Task-Force, had input into the development of Twitter’s ‘algorithm’, which regulates the ‘reach’ and visibility of Twitter users?
For, as discussed in my last article on this subject, the European Commission is setting up a ‘Centre for Algorithmic Transparency’ specifically for this purpose. Furthermore, as parts of the algorithm that Musk has published make clear, suppressing ‘misinformation’ is built right into it. See below, for instance.
Getting flagged for such ‘violations’ will result in restricting of visibility and ‘downranking’. So, yes, who’s to say that something is misinformation, who is the arbiter of that? Because Twitter is saying that right in its code and it must be recognising someone or something as the arbiter.
Speaking of which, it is surely no coincidence that the general categories of misinformation employed in the algorithm mirror the main areas of concern targeted by the EU in its efforts to ‘regulate’ online speech: “medical misinfo”, of course, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also “civic misinfo” in the context of contested elections – for instance, reports of fraud in recent elections in France or Brazil – or “crisis misinfo” in the context of the war in Ukraine.
Under the new Twitter regime, the stealth censorship of the algorithm has largely replaced the open censorship of the permaban. Shadow-banning has, in effect, become the norm.
Once upon a time, Elon Musk pledged to inform Twitter users if they are being shadow-banned and the reason why (see here). But like his promise of a “general amnesty” for all banned Twitter accounts, this pledge too has gone unfulfilled.
Perhaps the European Commission prefers the censorship to remain in the shadows and has thus vetoed the idea, as it vetoed the “general amnesty”.
But, in any case, why does Elon Musk never address his platform’s involvement with the European Union’s censorship regime? He talks all the time about incidental contacts with U.S. Government agencies. What is going on in the Permanent Task-Force on Disinformation, Elon Musk, and how can it possibly be compatible with your ostensible commitment to free speech?
Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, translator and researcher working in Europe. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on Twitter.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
‘Settled science’ may well be an oxymoron.
But the experience of the last three years calls to mind a shorter word: a ‘lie’.
One of my favourite ‘settled science’ topics is Darwinism. I just love the unsettling and uncomfortable reactions of reminding people, especially science types, it’s just a theory that not all scientists concur with 🙂
https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david
https://slate.com/technology/2012/10/evolution-of-cooperation-russian-anarchist-prince-peter-kropotkin-and-the-theory-of-mutual-aid.html
Yes, but we do not try to reorganise the global economy and spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers money based on what we think might or might be true about evolution. We ARE doing that with “climate change”. People are free to talk about evolution or black holes without being branded “enemies of science” or “deniers”.
Whenever I try to talk about the origin of the species I get called a Nazi eugenicist…
Agreed. And curious that so many aspects of GangGreenery were launched precisely by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
How humanity views itself within the framework of nature is relevant to anthropocentric perspectives and how we proceed with how ‘the crowd’ will continue to interact with nature. Part of the global economy reorganization is continued urbanism(smart green cities) and thus continued isolation/separation of humanity from nature…as opposed to spreading out and being part of nature and it’s natural order without a control system of intellectuals that consider humanity to be and accident that ended up being a parasite and then telling people who see themselves as part of nature how to live. AND in some circles you will be considered a heretic and banished for disagreeing with Darwinism and big bang… and on the other hand everybody is actually still free to discuss climatology outside of the status quo…one just has to not use the technocratic/blackrock/vanguard media platforms. Check out…
https://judithcurry.com/
Anyone else finding the site suddenly full of dodgey click bait junk adverts? Strewn all over the article, top of the window, bottom of the window? So many that they’re often overlapping? And for scam like things such as non surgical fat removal, or the like?
Not what I expect from a reputable subscription news site. Has it been hacked?
None at all. No doubt it depends on your setup. If you look at the image below, it shows part of how I’ve got Firefox set up – note the tick box against “pop-up windows”. Loads of other things you can manipulate as required.
Thank you!
Yes.
When using my android phone the ads have invaded everything. Make it quite hard to navigate.
Not sure about my computer.
Is Toby aware?
Re “settled science”, just follow the money.
Opera browser is an alternative with ad-blocking built it.
I use Brave. No ads.
Use Brave Browser. I don’t see any crappy adverts – neither on PC nor Android.
Then donate directly to Daily Sceptic.
Of course, you could just install Brave Browser and not donate, but that would be cheap, and only the rich can afford cheap shoes.
But then you do, because you’re commenting!
Yes. I thought it was my system, but I suspect interventions…
Keep your anti-virus up!
Yes. Site appears to be hacked.
None at all. I’m using iOS Safari. It could be that something nasty had got installed on your browser perhaps? Not saying Safari is better at all, just that I’m not seeing anything so suspect it’s something specific to your set-up.
Try DuckDuckGo (DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.). You can add it in as an extension to most browsers.
You can use it for searching instead of google which I recommend. Also, to control your privacy when visiting web sites. I use it and don’t get adverts or popups here.
I got the same thing on the Telegraph. Popups telling me that my McAfee subscription had run out (I don’t use it) and I should check my details. No doubt a phishing attempt. Turned on the DuckDuckGo privacy and no more popups from there.
Hey, this is an important thread!
Don’t kick it sideways with an irrelevant browsing problem!
That’s why they are now switching to ‘scientific consensus’.
Achieved by ignoring, cancelling and refusing to debate any scientific dissenters.
Religion’s a culture of Faith – just believe what you’re told.
Science is a culture of Doubt – question and test everything you’re told – even that which you’ve told yourself.
This is why politicians don’t like science and scientists – it’s all just too bloody slow and awkward for them and their little agendas.
Not to mention their tiny Arts Grad minds.
“Settled science” is an oxymoron. But a simpler explanation would suffice: The scientific method is predicated on uncertainty and embracing possibilities and the unknown, and once anything is claimed to have been settled, there is another word for it – dogma. It is no longer science if it is considered beyond question, since science is the systematized art of questioning everything to arrive at an ever-refined understanding of the phenomenon in question.
It is a highly typical uniquely human flaw to instinctively try to calcify our perceptions and interpretations into concrete and immutable meanings. And this kind of perceptual rigidity has reached into the arbiters of scientific discourse through the scientific age. The doctrine of neo-Darwinism, for example, has a death-grip on many academic institutions and is routinely taught as fact to students of the biological sciences when in reality it is a theory that has more recently been superseded by various other contenders.
Can’t remember when exactly, but sometime around Isaac Newton’s time a prominent scientific commentator of that era proclaimed that no further understanding of the life and the universe was necessary – only a refinement of that understanding. Along came Albert Einstein and threw a fairly hefty spanner in the works – unsettling “The Science” by doing more science!
So the claim of “settled science” is really nothing new under the sun, can be taken with a pinch of salt, and is merely the product, as most of this readership would agree, of an agenda-driven news media that so many mistakenly take as being representative of real scientific discovery. It’s not settled – it’s just become a fashionable meme.
‘The phrase ‘settled science’ has nothing to do with scientific truth…’
Agreed, and yet some science is settled. The earth is round, the solar system is heliocentric, the blood circulates, micro-organisms are agents of disease, the continents were once conjoined, the speed of light is constant for all observers,… I could, of course, go on.
It is settled and agreed that only cranks disagree with this settled science.
The triumph of the green maniacs is that they’ve achieved the same cranks-alone-dissent status for their theory of man-made climate change.
Some of the best articles in Daily Sceptic have come from this author, Dr James Alexander. I have not read one of his many articles that has intrigued and educated me and in many cases enforced my thoughts and beliefs. He is spot on with his remarks in this short piece and I have continually brought the subject of ‘settled science’ up as a nonsense – it is not science and it is not settled.
My own method of ‘getting’ to people on this subject is to bring it down to items that they can understand from the likes of that awful man, Attenborough. There are more polar bears than ever before; there is 18% more coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef and last Winter was the coldest Antactic winter on record. Nowadays, ordinary folk do not have a clue about statistics or understanding graphs – they only understand the Daily Mail’s headlines and nothing more and the BBC uses this apathy all the time to further their woke ideology.
We have a prolonged fight on our hands!
From an online lecture by very highly rated climate scientist William Happer, he quoted Shopenhauer who said:-
“All truth passes through three stages; First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and thirdly it is accepted as self evident.”
Happer then said the truth that CO2 is not harmful, but is actually good for the planet is somewhere between the stages of ridicule and violent opposition.