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.
First rule of Fight Club…
Reason.? Pragmatism and Patience.
Agreed. Musk is between a rock and a hard place, walking a tightrope, whatever image you prefer. With the risk of being fined up to 6% of Twitter’s global revenues IIRC, it’s difficult to see what alternative he has right now. I think he’s biding his time.
Yes, Twitter has to abide by the EU rules, they have no choice…and whether it’s better to be on the inside or not, I don’t know….
As far as using Twitter..it’s miles better under Musk…much more free..and despite what Mr Kogan says, huge numbers of censored and banned people I used to follow have returned….as for all of Elon’s other ‘pies’, I would have to look at each one separately and decide…why can’t he be right on some things, and wrong also…like a normal person? It seems to me that he’s being held to a higher bar than is usual…
Whether he’s for free speech or not, I will wait for the evidence..which currently looks good….it’s a fact that he released the Twitter files…and frankly I don’t remember people being so wound up when Jack Dorsey was ‘hiding’ the Hunter Biden files, or censoring anything Republican or Conservative..or banning any one who didn’t stick to the scamdemic agenda??…….as I say I’ll await further evidence…
Elon Musk EUSSR’s double agent
************************************
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
European Union of soviet socialist Republics????
I’m not going to downtick, but what are you trying to say?
Should be obvious.
And Musk is no fan of free speech; I can’t say this enough.
He can only fight so many enemies at once given the parlous finances of twitter. Have community notes started to appear on misinformation tweeted by EU officials yet?
…and run a rocket company and EV company.
Doesn’t the article more or less answer its own question?
Not a musk fan then Robert?
I’m not bothered one way or the other.
Musk’s way is better than it was, that’s about it!
My view is that Musk is relishing the opportunity of being taken to court so that these ill defined terms like dis and misinformation can be more closely examined by legal professionals.
Hopefully a judge will find the wording of the Digital Services Act to be nebulous, open to individual interpretation and political bias and therefore unenforceable.
Lets hope you’re right.
We see a lot reporting about Twitter’s collusion with the US government during the covid debacle, but nothing about the UK government and its dealings with social media.
Perhaps ‘our’ Matt did not have that much sway with the American tech company?
I can understand Musk’s predicament with Twitter, but kowtowing to these authoritarians won’t make them leave you alone.
Shadowbanning is far more insidious than overt censorship because it leaves the victim with no recourse to complain, act on it, or even to be aware they’re being censored. Its effect is a gradual demoralisation into silence, despair and compliance.
Then as some topics of ‘misinformation’ become very much information, when the walls of misdirection and propaganda can no longer hold back the truth; the point where more people than just the attentive and paranoid would finally speak out and protest, you end up instead with tumbleweeds and an apathetic population holding up their hands, saying “I know, but what can we do?”.
As a couple of people on here have said, it’s not confusing if you realise Musk is not on our side.
Does anyone who is awake actually think a person like Musk could even exist if his side wasn’t backing him?
His role is that of the Fool or Jester. He tells truths but in the end he is still part of the tyrant’s court. He will attract and mollify the peasants by telling them what they want to hear but in the end he still serves the powers.
He says watch out for AI then starts his own AI.
He calls for free speech, yet censors more than ever before.
He experiments on and kills monkeys in his transhumanist religious desires to have humans patch to computers.
He is in charge of the primary company that is trying to ram driverless vehicles on to humanity.
He runs starlink which is creating a grid of satellites around the planet which will aid total surveillance control over humanity.
He throws it in our faces when he wears a Demon costume.
He is not our friend. He is a false hero, like Trump.
The information/disinformation wars aren’t just about Musk……
I also note that Seymour Hersh has been ‘fact-checked’ by Facebook, in regards to his Nordstream theory article…
This article is worth a read..and I think goes to the heart of the censorship we are dealing with….
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/04/21/why-is-facebook-censoring-sy-hershs-nordstream-report/
As of Thursday, if you try to share on Facebook the February 8 Substack post in which Hersh first laid out the anonymously sourced charge, you’ll first be met with a prompt informing you about “additional reporting” on the subject in the form of Norwegian fact-checking website Faktisk, and warning you that “pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see their overall distribution reduced and be restricted in other ways.”
If you decide to “share anyway,” Hersh’s piece is posted but blurred out, and labeled “false information” by the social media platform. (It’s since been un blurred and labeled “partly false information”). “
…..But Seymour Hersh can and does post on Twitter…..!
Using Ocham’s razor the issue is not Musk but the EU.
…Occams…
….absolutely…undoubtedly they are a huge problem. I think Musk has been less than ‘kind’ about them…tin pot Hitlers…
Better inside the tent pissing out, possibly
Twitter has just given Britain First a gold checkmark. I’m not sure what that means as I don’t use Twitter, but it doesn’t sound like a telling off! Would that have happened previously? I doubt it – in fact I think they were banned.