Tags
Digital Commons, Elon Musk, Ethics in Online Publishing, freedom of speech, hate speech, Policing the Internet, Transnational Culture, W3 Culture, X
The Anti-Defamation League and Elon Musk have been sparring over the fate of hate speech on Musk’s “Digital Commons”, so I call it–#DigitalCommons–on X. The ADL appears to believe Musk is a publisher who should be responsible for the content of his web site while Musk appears devoted to the broadest legal freedom of speech concept and feel the obligation to sustain X uncensored. In the way of X, I’ve weighed in. Clearly, Musk neither authors nor edits the platform he administers in his role as a technologist. Forthwith, my opinion at X address https://x.com/JS_Oppenheim/status/1703418994139566319 –>
#IntegrityMatters #ResponsiveAndResponsibleGovernanceMatters
Single platform publishing has eliminated the boundaries that once sustained mainstream, fringe, and marginal communities in each their own domains. Today, the #DigitalCommons offers all everything at once in one place. That would not be a problem but for #AgitProp #Conspiracy #Disinformation #Incitement and #Recruitment into organizations or movements criminal or once marginalized by paper-based distribution.
Rx. Defenders of laws and within bounds civil behavior may have to go direct to their antagonists. Conspiracy, defamation, incitement (to crime) needs must be fielded, and the #DigitalCommons may not be itself the policing element.
Note: in the United States, not all speech has been protected under the First Amendment. Defamation, libel, and slander may be brought to court by suit or tort; conspiracy to commit crime or incitement to violence may be detected and met by the power of the State through its law enforcement agencies.
Related Online
Oppenheim, James S. “FTAC: Endemic Russian Anti-Semitism–A Note”. BackChannels, February 1, 2021.
Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation. “Russian Imperial Movement”.
–33–
BackChannels 