A Guest Essay by Jonathan Beck

Elon Musk’s Hostile Takeover of Twitter. Why give Megaphones to Megalomaniacs?

Public opinion is malleable. It’s molded. Shaped by op-ed (“opinion-editorial”) pieces from accredited journalists, elected or aspiring politicians, popular pundits. Also “guest opinions” from academic experts and religious leaders. Also paid “influencers” on social media. And unpaid commenters arguing on social media with boundless energy and unfettered passion. And limitless unchecked facts.

Where do they get their information? And what are they trying to do with it? For whose benefit?

In a dictatorship public opinion doesn’t matter. Under monarchy it begins to matter, and starts to be subject to censorship and control.

Democracy is based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press – that means public opinion is crucial for wielding power. And for the public’s protection against those who wield it against the public good. Pseudo-democracy is based on the semblance of free speech and the simulacrum of a free press. Before computers and the internet, public opinion in democratic regimes was more easily shaped by an accredited press informed by authoritative information structures.

Now, the accredited press is called elite and fake. “Mainstream” used to mean “credible, generally accepted, believed by most people” – people in the mainstream of society, not at the edges or fringes but in the mainstream. Now the term “mainstream media” is used pejoratively with the connotation “contrary to what we’re being told, but we know better, we know that what they’re telling us is probably not true.”

The U.S. government has a new agency for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security, CISA. Its job is to monitor and counter MDM: “CISA’s Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation (MDM) team is charged with building national resilience to MDM and foreign influence activities. Through these efforts, CISA helps the American people understand the scope and scale of MDM activities targeting elections and critical infrastructure, and enables them to take actions to mitigate associated risks.”

To wit: Putin’s war, driven and supported by MDM.

But what about MDM at home? The U.S. has a ways to go to catch up with Europe. Last Saturday (4-23-22) the European Union reached agreement on major legislation to curb negative impacts from social media sites and other digital platforms. Targeting Amazon, Google and Meta,

the Digital Services Act would, among other things, compel services including Facebook, Google, Twitter and others to crack down on the spread of disinformation on their platforms and to reveal how their algorithms recommend content to users. The DSA would also prohibit certain kinds of ads on the platforms, such as targeted ads aimed at children or tailored to people’s ethnicity or sexual orientation. “With the DSA we help create a safe and accountable online environment,” European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement. “Platforms should be transparent about their content moderation decisions, prevent dangerous disinformation from going viral and avoid unsafe products being offered on market places. With today’s agreement we ensure that platforms are held accountable for the risks their services can pose to society and citizens.

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter ended up agreeable to management. Less hostile than it first appeared. Opinion in the U.S. remains divided on that matter. Left and center are opposed. Voices on the right say it’s all right. A logic-deficient op-ed in today’s Washington Post (4-28-22) tries to argue against Obama’s defense of content-moderation on Twitter and others. WaPo columnist Jason Willick wonders “If voters can be so easily manipulated by exposure to a political figure’s false claims, then why does the democratic system deserve such a strenuous defense in the first place?” How crazy is that. Who believes that if a thing is not perfect, it’s not worth defending? It’s like saying, “If the human body is so easily subject to cancer, why does it deserve such strenuous attempts to defend it?” Cancerous tumors also result from misinformation, misinformation at the cellular level – mutations caused by mistakes during cell division or DNA-damaging agents in the environment. Mutations can be harmful, beneficial, or have no effect. Just like items in the press and on social media. But doesn’t it make better sense to counter harmful misinformation and eliminate the lethal occurrences, rather than saying “don’t regulate, just let it all hang out”? Willick and his ilk need to understand that “false information” is no less dangerous than faulty reasoning. The U.S. needs an E.U.-style approach to MDM foreign and domestic.