Anyone looking to Walter Isaacson’s new biography of Elon Musk for an account of how growing up in 1980s apartheid South Africa shaped Musk, will do so much as one might search for content moderation of X/Twitter – in vain.
As omissions go they’re hardly equivalent. The absence of content moderation on X/Twitter has grave implications for democracy worldwide. For South Africa, set to go to the polls next year, that absence is particularly ominous.
Still Isaacson’s omission veils critical reference points. It’s worth reflecting, for instance, that when Musk was born in Pretoria in 1971, Helen Suzman was nearing the end of a long, lonely 13-year stint as the sole voice of opposition in apartheid South Africa’s Parliament. It is almost impossible that he would have grown up not knowing of her example.
During this period she was subjected to frightening levels of abuse and bullying by her fellow MPs and yet was afforded her right to speak and protection by the House Speaker.
Indeed, when she was accused of being responsible for the assassination of apartheid’s chief architect, Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, PW Botha – who was later to assume the South African presidency during apartheid’s states of emergency years – was required to retract and apologise for those statements.
Musk says he is a free speech absolutist. That may be the reflective, countercultural viewpoint of a man whose early ideas of censorship were formed against a backdrop of 1980s Pretoria.
In those years, had Suzman simply been the hostage of the heckler’s veto, if she’d only been yelled at, subjected to an unrelenting barrage of ludicrous conspiracy and accusation, the target of near-constant threats to her physical security so that she was intimidated from speaking, none of her impressive contribution would have been possible.
She was able to uncover abuse and bring to light apartheid’s injustices because even apartheid South Africa offered her a mediated forum within which to make her contributions. In short, had the apartheid Parliament been conducted with as little moderation and regulation as Musk’s X/Twitter, there would have been no possibility of Helen Suzman.
Musk says he is a free speech absolutist. That may be the reflective, countercultural viewpoint of a man whose early ideas of censorship were formed against a backdrop of 1980s Pretoria.
But it is to fail to grasp, as Princeton academic Dr Zeynep Tufekci has written, “that the most effective forms of censorship today involve meddling with trust and attention, not muzzling speech itself. As a result, they don’t look much like the old forms of censorship at all. They look like viral or coordinated harassment campaigns, which harness the dynamics of viral outrage to impose an unbearable and disproportionate cost on the act of speaking out. They look like epidemics of disinformation, meant to undercut the credibility of valid information sources. They look like bot-fuelled campaigns of trolling and distraction, or piecemeal leaks of hacked materials, meant to swamp the attention of traditional media.”
And so it is proving in South Africa right now. As the election nears, ruling-party politicians and others happy for whatever paths might propel them to power, offer up scapegoats to explain away dismal governance failures. It’s migrants’ fault. It’s NGOs. It’s the courts. It’s still apartheid’s fault.
That would be bad enough. But that the chorus is taken up on X/Twitter especially, in deliberately organised campaigns and by the deliberately misled so that any who challenge these narratives are inundated with intimidation and disinformation, means a shrinking space for speech.
I know of which I speak. In recent months, as a result of our challenge to the South African government’s decision to terminate and effectively forcibly expel about 180,000 Zimbabweans who have lived in South Africa perfectly lawfully for the past 14 years, many of whom would otherwise have qualified as refugees, we have faced X/Twitter campaigns of lurid accusation and threat.
Our key message – that decisions of this magnitude must be sourced in sound reason and offer fair process to those adversely affected – seems the very antithesis of the X-storm we’ve faced.
In 2022, before Musk’s purchase, we had a hope when submitting complaints that some of the most offensive threats and absurd disinformation might be taken down, the originating accounts temporarily suspended. Now complaints to Musk’s X/Twitter elicit no real response.
Real411, a South African initiative to fight online harm and which has partnered with the Electoral Commission of South Africa in the run-up to the 2024 elections, appears to be having no better luck. Despite making authoritative determinations of fake and harmful content, its recommendations to X/Twitter of takedown seem to be simply ignored.
And these experiences are by no means unique. Across the country, civil society, journalists and independent commentators face similar onslaught. Will Musk give a fig that he helps further fray South African democracy? Probably not.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Revenge of the nerd – who is Elon Musk?
On his acquisition of Twitter, Musk notoriously slashed resources and staff directed at content moderation and collapsed its Trust and Safety Council. Twitter’s only Africa office was shuttered.
Even in the markets that matter most to him, he appears supremely indifferent: in May he pulled out of the EU’s code to fight disinformation and is currently suing the state of California for its law requiring social media platforms to regularly post their content moderation policies and report on how they address hate speech, racism and other disinformation.
In recent days, it has come to light that Musk is cutting X/Twitter’s election integrity team by half after promising to expand it.
At this rate, the annals of history may record contemporary South Africa less for the health and sustainability of its democracy than for being the birthplace of a man who put a torch to much of what is fundamental to democracy. DM
Firstly, democracy in SA the moment the anc got into power. Secondly, you bemoan free speech but yet here you are trying to instill censorship. Who decides wh0 gets the right of free speech and who doesn’t? Either all have the right to free speech or no one has
BEN, the sad truth is that DM also delete, repeat delete, … … ….
comments that pass moderation, … …. ….but if they don’t like it, …. …. ….they delete it without explanation
Very much so, just one “key” word and the comment is flagged and deleted
DM is big into censorship. You want examples? I will provide them
Fully agree with you. Her analogy makes no sense.
You and your follow on commentators sound like the very bots referred to – you misread the article and then gaslight the writer by claiming she is anti free speech.
Hahahahaha – so you only believed in the free speech that suits your agenda too then
Your laugh at the end sounds like that number one … remember him ?
why are people so affected by so-called hate speech? …. …. …. why do they allow themselves to be affected? …. …. ….. ….. why do they even read it? …. … … you need to ignore the things that does not really concern you …. …. …. nicole and marianne should really get together and work out their not so positive feelings about this space kadet… … … yes, marianne, we remember! … … …
1. In 1930s Germany, what started as hate *speech*, turned violent and ended with the murder of millions of Jews, Romani, Liberals and other “Others” the Right disliked.
2. This was reprised in SA under first Apartheid then, after 1994, Corruptheid.
3. Studies have shown that external perceptions can affect people — for example calling someone who is mute “dumb” or people who think that they cannot do maths or science because they are girls.
It really boils down to emotional intelligence and what sort of society you wish to live in.
what if they make their mental discipline stronger?
Perhaps X is not the appropriate forum for your message?
A very helpful reminder that free speech is not about saying exactly what you like so loudly and aggressively that you shut every one else up. Free speech is not about being allowed to spout whatever lies happen to suit your own agenda, to whip up mob mentality. Free speech is about informed debate, allowing the space for others to also give opinions, respect even when ideas clash and truth and openness
Thanks Geoff!
100% agree with you Geoff!!
“In recent months, as a result of our challenge to the South African government’s decision to terminate and effectively forcibly expel about 180,000 Zimbabweans who have lived in South Africa perfectly lawfully for the past 14 years, many of whom would otherwise have qualified as refugees, we have faced X/Twitter campaigns of lurid accusation and threat.”
Please could you give examples of the “lurid accusation[s] and threat[s]”? Issuing threats of violence is against the law and is certainly not an attribute of free speech.
The freedom to speak one’s mind is the first freedom that we should protect at all costs because once that goes, freedom itself goes. I might not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. There are those who pay lip service to freedom of speech and they will say that they support it – provided one agrees with what they say.
What we have today is a massive misunderstanding of what freedom of speech really is. It’s the right to hold different beliefs and opinions from everyone else, and the right to express those opinions, no matter how objectionable they are to the perpetually offended victims on various social media platforms. The main problem we have today is that governments are hand-in-glove with Big Tech and the corporate media and censor free speech, claiming it’s “hurtful” or “disinformation”. Nicole, please just take a good look at what you are asking because you can’t have it both ways.
But you can! Freedom of Speech does not equate to Freedom of Reach
There is no such thing as “freedom of reach”. It’s either freedom to speak or not at all. If you say to someone “you can say what you like but just go and sit in that corner where nobody can hear you” then that is censorship, pure and simple. Let sunlight shine on all speech and let people decide what they read/hear. Evil ferments in the dark, not in the light.
The right to say what you like does not equal the right to be heard, promoted, platformed or otherwise amplified.
Nobody has the right to censor my freedom of speech, to “deplatform” me, to prevent amplification if this is afforded to the opposing opinion. If someone believes that some opinions should be promoted and others not, then that person believes in censorship and doesn’t believe in freedom. And just to clarify, I’m not talking promoting unlawful behaviour. For example, nobody should be promoting child abuse or murder.
A further example of censorship would be if someone wants to shut down a doctor for expressing his/her medical opinion but allows another doctor who expresses a different medical opinion – that is censorship and, quite frankly, tyranny! And finally, no government has the right to suppress the freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association. These are all traits of a tyrannical government.
History and truth are not popularity contests – history and truth contain unpalatable information and opinions. Should we only allow the palatable history and truth to be discussed?
You’re advocating for sensorship – another who only believes that speech as free as long as it suits your agenda and opinions
And you’re a prime example of a purveyor of fact free views and propaganda, made clear in your comments and quoted sources in an article on the war in Ukraine. So of course it suits you to support the absolute free speech narrative because it permits you to purvey your fact free opinions and conspiracy theories. I suppose the Nazi’s originally also believed they had a right to absolute free speech which was quickly terminated when they came to power and needed to quash any opposition.
Gee guys, is freedom of speech really an absolute right? Does this mean you can say anything you like? Can you ruin somebody’s reputation and life with false accusations? Can you spread outright lies couched in the language of truth about children, destroying their self image and causing permanent damage? Some commit suicide as a result. Can you spread these lies to millions many of whom do not have the education to recognize these lies using chatbots?
Is this all ok? Where is truth in all this? Where is kindness, responsibility, caring for one another? Is this really the kind of world we want to live in?
Yes, freedom of speech is an absolute right BUT it doesn’t mean unlawful speech or incitement to violence. Making false accusations is a crime and should be severely punished. If only the “powers that be” stomped heavily on false accusations then we wouldn’t have to worry about that one so much.
Your questions about kindness and responsibility are absolutely relevant and I agree with you 100%! Where has our humanity gone?! Where has our sense of fair play, responsibility to the truth and respect for others gone?!
Sadly too many people want to censor others because they don’t like opposing opinions. We all have the right to disagree with one another. Someone might like Buddhism for example, and someone else might like Hinduism. Each to their own I say, as long as nobody imposes their own beliefs on others and dictate to others how they should live their lives.
Freedom of speech is an absolute right, abuse of that right by lying and making false accusations is punishable y law and is a consequence of the abuse of that freedom. You CANNOT however declare free speech only applies to the things YOU believe in, to do that is fascist and dictatorial
Ho hum. Yet another anti Musk article by DM. It’s getting a bit tiring guys. The man is a hero. On taking over Twitter he revealed the government (and FBI nogal) interference and censorship. People like Robert Kennedy Jnr. and Jordan Petersen being deplatformed. He fired the nasty woke left wing censors and replatformed those that had been censored and deplatformed. The man deserves a medal. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy to support censorship of those you disagree with while screaming “Free Speech” from the rooftops.
sanity at last
This is all about the simmering hostility and tension between the Left (Fritz, HSF and SERI) and ordinary citizens ( who bear the brunt of mass uncontrolled migration, massive crime rates, overcrowded, crime infested, hijacked buildings and infrastructure destruction).
Now the Left wants to shut the ordinary people up – and condescendingly do their thinking for them.
It’s the Left vs the People (which, according to demographics mean…….).
“The absence of content moderation on X/Twitter has grave implications for democracy worldwide.”
I couldn’t agree with the principle of this less. Democracy, to be meaningful, depends on the absence of censorship and manipulation of the public discourse so that it allows for dissent. Law enforcement and the courts are there, at least in less dysfunctional countries than our own, to deal with anything illegal that may be said publicly. We do not need a ministry of truth in the state or in the basements of enormous media corporations. I’m constantly amazed at how people who make their living expressing their opinions advocate for those with whom they may disagree being deprived of the ability to do the same.
“In recent days, it has come to light that Musk is cutting X/Twitter’s election integrity team by half after promising to expand it.”
Would be interesting to hear the authors view of Twitters role in the shaping, sorry content moderation, of news such as the New York Posts reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop in the run up to the last presidential election. I’d like to believe that’s not the sort of action that she regards as beneficial to democracy.
While it may be comforting to blame a failure of local democracy on an expat who could have done more for our local affairs, but owes us nothing, might I suggest a culprit slightly closer to home… that for as long as the average SA voter prefers voting for those who tell us what we wish to hear, we shall remain putty in political hands. As a group, SA has the government it voted for. If we feel cheated, we should consider if we had a hand in it by voting for undeliverable notions because we cannot digest the truth. What truth? That most of SA will be poor regardless of who we elect next, that you cannot provide free everything to everyone because we’ve run out of other people’s money, that 7 million taxpayers cannot support services for a 60 million population, that the state is not your Daddy… you know… that sort of truth that everyone knows deep down but only few can bring themselves to vote for. Change that voter attitude and nothing could throw us… don’t change it and no internet service could save us… not from ourselves.
Hear hear! I couldn’t agree more.
The right to freedom of speech is balanced by the obligation to allow others the same right – with the corollary that you may not simply drown them out with threats or loud noise. If you accept that, then there is no debate on the freedom of speech. Clamouring about rights is hollow without your obligation to allow others the same right.
Exactly – well said Sir
I wonder what Helen Suzman would think of a call for censorship to promote democracy?
All this about X Twitter and potential one man harm to democracy, lol, why no mention of his SpaceX Starlink satellite network running the Ukrain war’s communication systems. Giving him the implied power to interfere here also, if he should wish to extend the revenge of the nerd. Elephant in the room at US Pentagon, so much power in one man’s hands
Oh what tosh, because the Starlink system is provided does not equate to them “running the war’s communication systems”.
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It (sometimes attributed to Voltaire and many others…).
THAT is the core of what he is getting at. Not a woke watered down version of it. Cant say I completely disagree with him either – despite the proliferation of trolls (and its fairly easy to identify and ignore the under bridge dwellers). This article is a massive over reaction.