Adrian and Darridge: The absolute freedom of expression supported by Elon Mask is full of defects

An almost gene day goes by without Elon Musk has announced its firm belief in the absolute importance of freedom of expression, and insists that “the control of content is merely a propagandamer mine for control”, and that no publication should be deleted unless the law is in conflict, nor should the opinions of others interfere. He said that if the social network website X would represent a public square that brings people from all over the world, it should be a platform for freedom of expression. Although Mask’s publications on freedom of expression have increased significantly since his dispute with British Prime Minister Kiir Starmer because of the role played by “X” during the riots the country recently saw, there is no doubt that it does not represent the most important beliefs of Mashk alone, but rather in the “Silicon Valley” elite. In 2019, his colleague, Technology Poland, Mark Zuckerberg, told an audience to Georgetown university that we “should” address the desire to make a definition of expression “, and expressed his remorse a few days ago on the submission of the pressure of the Biden Administration” to put control “on the content. Who wins the struggle for ideas? The argument in support of the freedom of absolute expression is based on a concept that still represents the essence of liberalism, but the platform that Musk himself has the one who destroys the concept, and in the argument, the struggle for ideas to an inevitable victory for the truth about the lie, democracy over tyranny, and which is overwhelmed by their affect and power. He listened to what three of the most prominent supporters of liberalism said; John Milton asked, “Has anyone of you ever seen the defeat of truth in an open free discussion?” John Stewrat Mail insisted that the truth inevitably radiate “the battle between different ideas”. Oliver Wendel Holmes concluded that the optimal test of truth lies in the ability to win “in the free market of ideas.” The struggle for ideas is useful for democracy as it is able to win the public square, and beneficial to public order, because it allows everyone to express their differences before they are subjected to the democratic will. It also benefits the safety of society in general, as it enables people to keep the owners of power, and Mask has said that “freedom of expression is the basis of democracy.” Nevertheless, the freedom of expression practiced on “X” and other social media platforms in all these tests failed. The exciting tweets occur more frequently and faster than their sober counterparts, and the characters that are polarizing attract more followers than their logical views, and available discussion mechanisms, such as distribution of reactions and correction, weaker than advertising and fame mechanisms. The false news threatens democracy in the real world, most people are careful about choosing their knowledge, but in the virtual world they give up all this caution, listen to people who would appear with them in public, either because the succession is motivated by curiosity, or because the Twitter algorithm pushes these characters before them, which is the most likely reason. This is how the traditional value of the social network turned, instead of “cleaning” the content and purifying information, the system combines rights and decorations and reliable and suspicious sources. Nevertheless, the worst is that the user is no longer able to distinguish between the opinions of rights and artificial people. A study conducted by researchers at the University of “Carnegie Mellon” revealed 200 million tweets about the Corona virus sent during the first few months of 2020 that 45% of it was sent by robots and probably not people, and that they distributed the United States division. Therefore, the possibility that the democratic “Twitter” will weaken is greater than its strengthening; The riots recently broke out in the United Kingdom when a user tweeted a false news that the man who killed 3 girls in the south of the harbor was a Muslim refugee arriving on a small boat in the country. (Perhaps these rumors of course spread without ‘Twitter’, but the fact that the platform reaches a large number of people and spreads unconfirmed rumors along with reliable news resources in new publications made it more dangerous). Foreign powers, especially Russia, deliberately use misleading information that has sometimes been published by suspicious parties, and other times, with the aim of stimulating social tensions, spreading rumors and bringing public suspicion. The motives of social media platforms commercially. As far as power is concerned, the old liberal model turned completely upside down. The freedom to express the people was supposed to be able to hold strong governments, so the press was the only one mentioned by the founding fathers in the first amendment of the US Constitution. But currently, the platforms, not governments, have become powerful as they work all over the world (except for China, which is currently behind the ‘Great Wall of Protection’) according to the principles that only understand a few elite in ‘Silicon Valley’. As the number of active users per month reached “X” 368 million, while their number on Facebook amounted to more than 3 billion. That’s why the mask master, George Washington, thinks of the modern era, but it is in fact closer to King George III. The deepest problem with social media platforms is that they do not represent public arenas aimed at encouraging open debate and democratic thinking, as it is commercial businesses designed to attract attention and improve interaction, and the most important scale they have is not the victory of the truth about lie, but rather the number of clicks, and the residence. This number has nothing to do with the search for truth or democratic thinking compared to the opposite; The material and exciting materials cause the increased secretion of dopamine we crave, and ask us to keep browsing and using again. Freedom of expression does not mean the absence of restrictions. We need to take an important debate on how to balance freedom and responsibility, and to make any progress in this debate, we need to get rid of the absolute boundaries (freedom against tyranny) and take into account two types of nuances. The first type is the existence of different types of opinion, starting with political opinion (which most people agree on the need to protect), to commercial opinion and ending with intimidation. But America’s commitment to the first amendment (the Constitution) did not prevent restrictions from imposing -political opinion on the basis of health or accuracy. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission controls what people can say when selling financial products, while the food and drug administration determines what it should or what should not be said about specific products, and the Federal Trade Committee prohibits ‘unfair and misleading’ opinion on trade and trade. In terms of the second accurate difference, it is the presence of a large number of different types of organizations, from the comprehensive to the simple. Sigrena will apply the British model to broadcast on news platforms. To work a license, the British broadcast providers must prove that they are ‘decent and qualified people’, and they must agree to report the news “with the necessary impartiality and proper accuracy.” As for the people who see these requirements hard, there are more serious standards, such as X users – followed by a large number – to meet the highest standards of a greater degree of ordinary users, or prohibit well -known problems. All rational societies place restrictions on people’s ability to shout in a crowded theater with the word ‘fire’, but that is exactly what a large number of concerns on social media platforms do. It is no longer possible to accept the old hypothesis that these platforms should be allowed to do what they want under the banner of freedom of expression when she has this great amount of influence, and its commercial motives are contrary to the right way.