avatarMeliha Avdic

Summary

The article discusses the complexities of freedom of speech on Twitter, especially in light of Elon Musk's acquisition, and reflects on the importance of dialogue and trust in society.

Abstract

The author delves into the nuanced debate surrounding freedom of speech, using Twitter as a case study to explore when such freedom is beneficial or detrimental. The recent purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk has sparked varied reactions, with the author noting a personal decline in the platform's content quality. The article touches on the challenges of moderating hate speech and misinformation, such as genocide denial, while upholding free expression. It emphasizes the necessity of dialogue for freedom of speech to truly flourish, lamenting the loss of trust in modern society. The author draws a parallel between the current state of discourse and a time when conversations were more genuine, as depicted in their book "Just Another Life." The piece concludes with a hopeful outlook on Twitter's future under Musk's leadership, viewing it as a potential catalyst for positive social change.

Opinions

  • Freedom of speech is a contentious issue, with its appropriateness varying according to context, such as in the cases of Hitler and Nelson Mandela.
  • The author observes that Twitter has become less engaging, attributing this to the algorithm's tweet selection rather than a lack of quality content from individual followers.
  • Bots and hateful or harmful content, such as genocide denial, are seen as detractors from constructive discourse and should be addressed accordingly.
  • The author values manners and refrains from name-calling, even when confronted with opposing viewpoints.
  • There is a diverse range of opinions on Elon Musk's Twitter takeover, from optimism to skepticism about its potential impact.
  • The article suggests that dialogue is a prerequisite for meaningful freedom of speech, and it is currently lacking in social media interactions.
  • The author believes that society has lost a significant amount of trust among its members, which is detrimental to community and social well-being.
  • The book "Just Another Life" is presented as a reflection on a time when trust and open dialogue were more prevalent in society.
  • The author is curious about the changes that will occur on Twitter and encourages readers to engage in the conversation by tagging them in related writings.
  • A cost-effective AI service, ZAI.chat, is recommended for those interested in AI capabilities similar to ChatGPT Plus (GPT-4).

Twitter, Freedom of Speech, and Just Another Life

Photo by Ardian Lumi on Unsplash

Freedom of speech is a really tough cookie, isn’t it? Do we want it? Do we not want it? When is it a good idea, and when is it a bad, terrible, horrific idea? Many will agree that in the case of Hitler it was a very, very bad idea, but then in the case of Nelson Mandela, it was a great idea.

Elon Musk recently purchased Twitter (sort of speak) apparently because he wants freedom of speech. I have to admit that Twitter has become a bit dull lately, but I’m not sure why. For me, it’s more about the tweets that show up on my homepage. I’m not one of those people who go down the list of their followers and visit their profiles on a regular basis. Perhaps that’s a bit lazy, I expect good tweets on my homepage, but it’s the way I am.

On the other hand, I’ve had trouble with bots, genocide deniers, and haters. Bots, obviously, we can just chuck those out. Genocide deniers and haters are people expressing their opinion. The first group, the deniers, well they can be dealt with easily — Genocide in Srebrenica is a fact, there is a ruling, whole bunch of stuff that shows the genocide did take place. These individuals are simply refusing to accept the facts, and they don’t care enough about humanity to think what it means when they openly refuse to accept such a horrific fact. Should they be entitled to freedom of speech, especially considering that the dead cannot take part in Twitter?

Haters are a group many have had trouble with. This is where freedom of speech gets really interesting. We all have things we don’t like, and when we express our dislike, it can sound like hating. I, for example, do NOT like those who deny the genocide in Srebrenica. I will be tempted, very tempted to call them stupid, heartless freaks of nature who support fascism. However, I will not call them any of these names because I have manners.

I’ve been reading some posts about the ‘Elon takeover’ and opinions are really different. Some people are very optimistic, some believe that he could have spent the money better, some have promised to leave Twitter, many wonder if Trump's account will be reinstated, and many are looking forward to what changes will take place.

At this point, I should mention that I started following Elon after an idea for a story. Now my Twitter homepage shows his tweets first — interesting, right?

I get so many of his tweets that I’ve been tempted to ask a few questions for my story, questions like: Would you ever say something like ‘Legend has it that Alexander the Great asked to be buried with both his hands sticking out of the ground so that everyone can see that he left this world with nothing’? This kind of sentence would make my story a little richer, but I’m not sure if he’d ever say something like that. And I don’t think there’s any point in asking since he doesn’t do replies, conversations, dialogue…

Dialogue! How important is dialogue in freedom of speech? I already mentioned that the dead do not speak, which means that people who deny genocide do not have much of a worry that a huge number of people will counter their arguments. If the dead can’t speak, and we know they can’t, should the living have the freedom to say whatever they want about the dead? Simply because we cannot have a dialogue with the dead.

We assume that with freedom of speech we will have dialogue, but that is not true, and dialogue is vital for true freedom of speech. And dialogue comes first; our willingness and ability to talk to one another. With dialogue, we can fight for freedom of speech. Without dialogue, freedom of speech is just something that’s there, like a virtual thing that exists and it waits for someone to make use of it.

This is one of the main reasons why I wrote Just Another Life.

Dialogue is so important for human relations. I am tired of hearing EVERYONE (including myself) talk about how they cannot trust anyone. How did this happen? How did we get to live in a society where no one can trust anyone? If I am trustworthy, why don’t people trust me? If you’re trustworthy, why don’t I trust you? What has happened to us?

In my book, I chose to go back to before social media changed everything when there was some trust among people, and people disagreed freely without losing each other as a friend. I know this was a fact of life for most of us. We all had arguments, and we all still had friends, and nobody felt like they can’t trust anyone, and we all had people who could show up at our doorstep at two in the morning with blood on their hands and we’d let them in without a question. Where did this trust go? And, how do we get it back? I think we really need this back if we are to make a go of our community and society.

I think freedom of speech is a great thing to have, but let’s not waste it. We need to work on making the most out of that gift, not just for ourselves, but also for those who do not have it. I am eager to see what Twitter will become now. I think it could be an exciting social experiment. How about you? What are your thoughts on the topic?

Needless to say, there will be more articles on this topic and I hope they will to all be written by me. If you write something about this, please tag me. Thanks and best wishes.

Social Media
Freedom Of Speech
Twitter
Books
Dialogue
Recommended from ReadMedium