This episode is brought to you by our sponsor CCIA, an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms and that promotes open markets, open systems, and open networks.
We’ve spent yearscalling out what a hypocrite Elon Musk is on free speech. But sometimes the universe Elon hands you a gift: three tweets in the span of a little over a week that demonstrate the entire con more clearly than any deep dive ever could. Let’s start with this one:
That’s Elon announcing that:
Falsely labeling non-violent people as “fascist” or “Nazi” should be treated as incitement to murder
Which is, to be clear, an extreme anti-free speech position. It’s an extremely censorial stance.
Statements indicating a political opponent is a Nazi or coward are “odious and repugnant” and far too common in today’s political discourse. But they are not actionable defamation “because of the tremendous imprecision of the meaning and usage of such terms in the realm of political debate.” In other words, being called a Nazi or coward are not verifiable statements of fact that would support a defamation claim
So, already, we see that Elon is taking an anti-free speech stance with that tweet. Political hyperbole, even of the Nazi-calling variety, is protected speech. Always has been.
Now keep that tweet in mind as we head into the next one.
Because over the weekend… Elon Musk pretty clearly falsely called the EU Commission (which just fined him)… Nazis.
If you can’t see that, it’s Elon retweeting someone who posted an image of the EU flag being pulled back to reveal a Nazi flag. The original poster says “The Fourth Reich” and Elon’s quote tweet says: “Pretty much.”
So, let’s recap: falsely calling non-violent people Nazis is, according to Elon, “incitement to murder” and yet here he is… falsely calling non-violent people Nazis. Just a week after that original statement.
And then there’s the third act that ties it all together. I know he’s said this one before in similar forms, but this weekend he also claimed that the “Surefire way to figure out who the bad guys are is by looking who wants to restrict freedom of speech.”
So, uh, yeah. Just a week after Elon says that labeling a non-violent person a Nazi should be considered “incitement to murder” (an inherent attempt to suppress speech of critics), he claims that the easiest way to figure out who are “the bad guys” is to see who wants to suppress speech.
According to Elon’s own standard: he is the bad guy. He is saying that we should suppress speech of those who call him a Nazi. And therefore, he is a bad guy. By his own logic.
The pattern is obvious. Elon’s entire incoherent “free speech” framework collapses into a single, coherent principle: speech I like is protected, speech I don’t like should be punished. He wants the freedom to call the EU Commission Nazis. He wants to criminalize anyone who calls him one. He proclaims that those who restrict speech are “the bad guys” while simultaneously arguing that calling him a Nazi should be treated as incitement to murder—a severe restriction on speech. And when he or his allies do actual Nazi-like things? Well, you better not mention it, or you’re inciting violence.
This is what happens when someone who has never understood the actual principles of free speech tries to cosplay as a free speech absolutist. The mask doesn’t just slip—it falls off entirely, and all that’s left is the naked self-interest underneath.
This story was originally published by the Texas Tribune and the Texas Newsroom and co-published with ProPublica. Republished under the Texas Tribune’s republish feature.
Months after fighting to keep secret the emails exchanged between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s companies, state officials released nearly 1,400 pages to The Texas Newsroom.
The records, however, reveal little about the two men’s relationship or Musk’s influence over state government. In fact, all but about 200 of the pages are entirely blacked out.
Of those that were readable, many were either already public or provided minimal information. They included old incorporation records for Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, a couple of agendas for the governor’s committee on aerospace and aviation, emails regarding a state grant awarded to SpaceX and an application from a then-Musk employee to sit on a state commission.
One is an invitation to happy hour. Another is a reminder of the next SpaceX launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request by The Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees dating back to last fall. Abbott’s and Musk’s lawyers fought their release, arguing they would reveal trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” exchanges or confidential legal and policymaking discussions.
Abbott’s spokesperson, Andrew Mahaleris, said the governor’s office “rigorously complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any responsive information that is determined to not be confidential or excepted from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of a larger transparency problem in Texas. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court decision that allowed companies to oppose the release of records by arguing that they contain “competitively sensitive” information. The ruling, experts said, made it harder to obtain records documenting interactions between governments and private companies.
Tom Leatherbury, who directs the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said companies took advantage of the ruling. Among the most prominent examples of the ruling’s effect on transparency was McAllen’s refusal to disclose how much money was spent to lure pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosures would hurt its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. Eventually, it was revealed that Iglesias was paid nearly half a million dollars.
The problem has been exacerbated, Leatherbury added, by the fact that the Office of the Attorney General, which referees public records disputes, does not have the power to investigate whether the records that companies want to withhold actually contain trade secrets.
“Corporations are willing to assert that information is confidential, commercial information, and more governmental bodies are willing not to second-guess the company’s assertion,” Leatherbury said. (Leatherbury has performed pro bono legal work for The Texas Newsroom.)
Musk and his companies’ representatives did not respond to questions about the records.
As part of an effort to track Musk’s clout in the state Capitol, The Texas Newsroom on April 20 asked Abbott’s office for communications with employees from four of the businessman’s companies: SpaceX, car manufacturer Tesla, the social media site X and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office said it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which The Texas Newsroom paid. After the check was cashed, lawyers representing Abbott’s office and SpaceX each sought to keep the records secret.
SpaceX’s lawyer sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dated June 26, saying that publicly releasing the emails would hurt its competitive advantage.
Abbott’s public information coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they included private exchanges with lawyers, details about policymaking decisions and information that would reveal how the state entices companies to invest here. Taylor said some of the records were protected under an exception to public records laws known as “common-law privacy” because they consisted of “information that is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public.”
Releasing the Musk emails, he said, would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for the decision-making process.”
Ultimately, Paxton’s office mostly sided with Abbott and Musk. In a Aug. 11 opinion, Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote that many of the documents could be withheld. Groff, however, ordered the release of some records determined to be “either not highly intimate or embarrassing” or of “legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of records, the vast majority of which were completely redacted.
Some records included a note that appeared to explain why. A note on page 401, for example, cited the exemption for competitive bidding records for 974 redacted pages. Names and emails of Musk’s employees were also removed.
“The fact that a governmental body can redact more than 1,000 pages of documents that are directly related to a major business’s activities in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reid Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law. (Pillifant has represented a coalition of media outlets, including ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, in lawsuits seeking the release of public information related to the May 2022 mass shooting at an Uvalde elementary school.)
He and other experts said such hurdles are becoming more common as legislation and court decisions have weakened the state’s public records laws.
Four years after the 2015 Supreme Court decision, legislators passed a new law that was meant to ensure the release of basic information about government deals with private businesses. But open government experts said the law did not go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments are still objecting to the release of contract information.
Moreover, lawmakers continue to add carve-outs to what qualifies as public information every legislative session. Just this year, for example, legislators added the following exceptions to public records and open meetings laws: information relating to how government entities detect and deter fraud and discussions during public government meetings about certain military and aerospace issues.
Even with the increasing challenges of accessing public records, Leatherbury and Pillifant were stumped by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages only to black them out fully. Leatherbury said that the governor’s office may have wanted to show the volume of records responsive to the request.
“They wanted you to see what little you could get in the context of the entire document, even though that’s kind of meaningless,” he said.
The Texas Newsroom has asked the Office of the Attorney General to reconsider its decision and order the release of the Musk emails. There is little other recourse to challenge the outcome.
If a member of the public believes a government agency is violating the law, they can try to sue. But the experts noted that a recent Texas Supreme Court decision made it more difficult to enforce the public records law against the governor and other executive officers. Now, Leatherbury said, it’s not clear how challenging such a records decision would work.
“Every Texas citizen should care about access to these kinds of records because they shed light on how our public officials are making big decisions that affect the land where people live and how their taxpayer dollars are being spent,” Pillifant said.
Lauren McGaughy is a journalist with The Texas Newsroom, a collaboration among NPR and the public radio stations in Texas. She is based at KUT News in Austin. Reach her at lmcgaughy@kut.org. Sign up for KUT newsletters.
Elon Musk is now calling for the dissolution of the European Union because it fined him $140 million for violating a law he once said was “exactly aligned” with his vision for (what was then called) Twitter.
And he’s doing it by lying about what the fine is actually for.
The EU hit X with a $140 million fine last week for violating the Digital Services Act (DSA). But (despite what you may have heard) this isn’t some censorship overreach by Brussels bureaucrats. The violations—which have been known for over a year—have nothing to do with content moderation. Zero. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
The fine is for three specific transparency failures: misleading users when Elon changed verification from actual verification to “pay $8 for a checkmark,” maintaining a broken ad repository, and refusing to share required data with researchers.
The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk’s X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms. A European Commission spokesperson said the fine against X’s holding company was due to theplatform’s misleading use of a blue check markto identify verified users, a poorly functioning advertising repository, and a failure to provide effective data access for researchers.
Again, let’s repeat: it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the way X handles content moderation or what speech it allows on its platform. As Daphne Keller explains:
Don’t let anyone — not even the United StatesSecretary of State— tell you that the European Commission’s€120 million enforcementagainst Elon Musk’s X under the Digital Service Act (DSA) is about censorship or about what speech users can post on the platform. That would, indeed, be interesting. But this fine is just the EU enforcing some normal, boring requirements of its law. Many of these requirements resemble existing US laws or proposals that have garnered bipartisan support.
There are three charges against X, which all stem from amulti-year investigationthat was launched in 2023. One is about verification — X’s blue checkmarks on user accounts — and two are about transparency. These charges have nothing to do with what content is on X, or what user speech the platform should or should not allow. There is plenty of EU political disapproval about those things, for sure. But the EU didn’t choose to pick a fight about them. Instead, it went after X for violating much more basic, straightforward provisions of the DSA. Those violations were flagrant enough that it would be weird if the EU hadn’t issued a fine.
Both Daphne and I have criticized attempts by EU officials to abuse the DSA in pursuit of censorship. I directly called it out when former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton clearly went way over the line last year, a move that quickly led to Breton losing his job. I’ve been highly critical of the DSA for years, so if this were actually an abuse of the law for censorship, I’d be first in line to call it out and side with Elon (I’ve done it in other circumstances as well).
But this is not that. This has nothing to do with “content moderation” or “censorship” in any way.
And yet, Elon Musk is running around pretending it is a free speech issue, and his once-again friends in the Trump administration are bolstering that false claim.
As Daphne pointed out, the EU could investigate certain aspects of X’s content moderation, and that could lead to serious questions about censorship and free speech. But they have not done so.
Honestly, this move is little different than the Trump FTC taking action against a Chinese company for violating COPPA. Which it has done. Did we see Chinese politicians lose their minds over that? Did we see the CEO of that company, Apitor Technology, call for dissolving the United States like Elon Musk is now calling for dissolving the EU? No. No, we did not.
But because the Elon Musks/JD Vances/Marco Rubios of the world can only think in terms of memes and culture wars, they know that if they just insist that this is about censorship, that the media will cover it that way, and the ignorant rabble on X will buy their version of the story.
All this is even more incredible because Elon Musk told the EU that he was entirely on board with the DSA while he was in the process of buying Twitter. Yes, the law he’s now claiming is censorship tyranny requiring the dissolution of an entire governmental body is the very same law he declared was “exactly aligned” with his vision for the platform.
At the time, we called out how the EU was clearly playing Musk, who seemed to have no clue what he was actually endorsing. It was obvious he hadn’t read or understood the DSA. But there he was, recording a video claiming perfect alignment with a regulatory framework he’s now treating as an existential threat to free speech.
So it’s pretty rich for him to whine about it now.
Of course, Musk isn’t just misrepresenting the fine. He’s responding with a series of escalating tantrums designed to feed his false censorship narrative. First, he called for abolishing the entire EU:
Then came the petty retaliation. First, he canceled the EU Commission’s X advertising account. X claimed it was because they “exploited” X’s ad platform by posting a link that appeared to be a video, but replies to that tweet suggested many, many people said that claimed “exploit” was not an exploit at all, but a tool that many others had used.
As the coiner of “The Streisand Effect,” I’d just like to point out that this is not what the Streisand Effect means at all.
Each move—calling to dissolve the EU, canceling ads, threatening individuals—is transparently designed to manufacture a free speech crisis where none exists. It’s performance art for an audience that won’t bother checking whether the fine is actually about censorship (it isn’t).
And he’ll likely keep escalating with the help of the Trump administration.
The DSA certainly has some issues, but this fine is not one of them. But that hasn’t stopped Elon Musk and his crew of political supporters from pretending that this is some huge attack on American free speech. It’s not. No more than the FTC’s fine against Apitor was an attack on China-based speech.
But, of course, most of the media will continue to pretend this is about free speech. They will frame it that way and for years into the future we’ll hear false stories—that the media and tons of other people will simply accept as true—that the EU fined X and Elon $140 million for not censoring people.
This is the template now. Violate fairly modest regulations, claim it’s censorship, get your political allies to amplify the lie, use it to de-legitimize any attempt at platform accountability for actively misleading users. It’s not about free speech. It never was. It’s about securing freedom from accountability while wielding the power of both private platforms and state resources to crush anyone who tries to impose it.
So yeah, anytime you hear someone claim the EU fined Musk for not censoring people, call it out. Because the truth matters, even when powerful people would prefer you didn’t notice they’re lying.
For the last few years, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and their allies have spent considerable energy attacking both academic researchers studying disinformation and the trust & safety teams at social media platforms working to identify and remove coordinated inauthentic behavior—particularly foreign influence operations. They’ve insisted that any attempt to study and limit such operations is actually just “censorship” with various forms of cover, whether academic or operational.
Then Elon Musk rolled out a feature often used by trust & safety teams internally, looking at where accounts were created and/or where they normally post from. Except Musk made the info public. And within hours it revealed exactly why platforms had been doing this kind of work internally in the first place.
And, no, it wasn’t about “censorship” of ideological viewpoints.
On Friday, X began rolling out a feature that revealed where users signed up from and where they were posting from. The feature came following the request of MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, who asked Musk back in September to add country-of-origin labels to help identify foreign influence operations. We noted the irony at the time—Loomer and her friends spent years attacking the trust & safety teams who were actually working on this problem.
Whether it was because of Loomer’s request or it was already in the pipeline, Musk rolled it out.
And, within hours, the feature revealed that a ton of super popular “MAGA” accounts were actually posting from all over the globe, with large numbers posting from Eastern Europe, West Africa, or Southeast Asia.
Almost immediately after the feature launched, people started noticing that many rage-bait accounts focused on US politics appeared to be based outside of the US. Profiles with names like ULTRAMAGA🇺🇸TRUMP🇺🇸2028 were revealed to be based in Nigeria. A verified account posing as border czar Tom Homan was traced to Eastern Europe. And America_First0? Apparently from Bangladesh. An entire network of “Trump-supporting independent women” claiming to be from America was really located in Thailand.
incredible things are happening on x, the every-scam app
Hey if Musk had left on the location feature, we might find out the whole platform is a fake!Here's "America Man" located in Indonesia."Native American Soul" located in Bangladesh."MAGA News" based in South Asia."Joe Rogan HQ News" located in Pacific East Asia.
X’s new “About this account” tool reveals that dozens of pro-Russian and MAGA accounts with tens of thousands of followers, long posing as American or Russian, are actually created and run from India, Bangladesh, and other South Asian countries.
The scale of the problem isn’t just about foreign actors exploiting the platform—it’s about Musk creating the economic incentives that make it profitable. As the popular Derek Guy account noted, Musk instituted an “engagement-based” payment structure that pays out money based on how many views, retweets, and comments you get. For people in lower income regions, trolling on politically sensitive topics in America to generate likes and clicks (especially now that they can use AI to do so) isn’t just easy—it’s an actual business model that Musk built into the platform.
Twitter pays people based on engagement (views, retweets, comments, etc). It appears that many MAGA accounts are based abroad and they use AI technology to generate low-effort rage bait. My guess is that this will get worse as AI tech improves. For instance, fake videos of minorities doing crime.
This isn’t a bug in the system. It’s a feature Musk designed, then acted surprised when it attracted exactly the kind of behavior that trust & safety teams used to work to identify and limit.
While it’s fascinating that X actually rolled this out, it should raise questions about those who have spent the past few years stewing in that cesspool of foreign rage-bait manipulation, insisting it was somehow an accurate portrayal of public opinion.
Now, there are some limitations to the system. X’s head of product noted that uses of VPNs or Starlink may have the wrong country show up on their account. But VPN usage doesn’t explain accounts with thousands of posts over months, all originating from the same foreign location, all focused on American political rage-bait, all monetizing engagement through Musk’s payment system.
This is exactly the kind of coordinated inauthentic behavior that trust & safety teams were built to identify and address. Not to “censor” ideological viewpoints, but to surface when what looks like organic American political discourse is actually foreign actors gaming the system for profit.
For years, Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and their allies have insisted that anyone working on these problems was part of a “censorship industrial complex” designed to silence political speech. Politicians like Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan repeated these lies. They treated trust & safety work as a threat to democracy itself.
Then Musk rolled out one basic feature, and within hours proved exactly why trust & safety work existed in the first place.
Will Taibbi or Shellenberger acknowledge they spent years attacking the people who were actually trying to protect the integrity of online discourse? Will they admit they helped dismantle the very systems that could have prevented what Musk just exposed?
I doubt it. They’re too busy on X, swimming in the very manipulation they insisted didn’t exist.
In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by Kenji Yoshino, who has the excellent title of Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law and the Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging. Kenji is also a member of the Oversight Board. Together Ben and Kenji discuss:
This episode is brought to you by our sponsor CCIA, an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms and that promotes open markets, open systems, and open networks.
This episode is brought to you by our sponsor Safer by Thorn, a purpose-built CSAM and CSE solution. Powered by trusted data and Thorn’s issue expertise, Safer helps trust and safety teams proactively detect CSAM and child sexual exploitation messages.
If Elon Musk probably has a superpower, it isn’t his engineering or business savvy. It’s probably his rank opportunism. The latest case in point: this week saw a massive outage for Amazon Web Services (AWS) that managed to take many of your favorite websites and services offline. The outage also hampered the workflows of countless online businesses. The impact was fairly universal.
And, ever the opportunist, Musk was quick to leverage the outage to unfairly smear a potential competitor and promote his own, shittier alternative.
Musk, however, took the opportunity to exploit the outage to criticize Signal over at his right wing propaganda and crypto grifter website:
Why would Musk do this? He’s trying to promote his own, shittier encrypted chat software beta, the creatively named X Chat. X Chat is part of Musk’s quest to turn what was once Twitter into an “everything app,” despite the fact he’s shown little real indication he’s innovative enough to actually make X useful for anything outside of sports chat and fighting with racist crypto grifter bots.
While Signal isn’t perfect and certainly has some dependencies on centralized infrastructure, the AWS outage didn’t create any specific risk issues related to encrypted Signal communications. Musk simply saw an opportunity to exploit the outage to market his barely-used beta software. Signal President Meredith Whittaker responded to Musk by noting that Signal was at least transparently open source:
But because every brain fart Elon Musk has somehow warrants its own clickbait news cycle, what’s left of the U.S. press couldn’t help but amplify Musk’s criticism of Signal and parrot his attacks mindlessly:
Much like Trump, Musk’s real skill set has absolutely nothing to do with engineering.
His real skill set revolves rank opportunism (like cozying up to talented engineers and taking singular credit for their work) and exploiting America’s very broken press for attention and marketing. In this case, trying to convince people to migrate from a trusted, open source, secure messaging app to a closed source app run by an erratic white supremacist ideologically aligned with the planet’s shittiest people.
It’s fascinating how quickly the tune changes when the shoe’s on the other foot. For years, we’ve been treated to endless screaming about how any effort to identify and counter foreign manipulation on social media was “censorship” and a violation of Americans’ free speech rights. The same crowd that turned researchers into pariahs and shut down entire government offices dedicated to studying foreign influence operations are now… demanding that social media platforms identify foreign accounts?
Laura Loomer, ever the consistent voice of reason, recently posted on X:
After this week, I would like to see X put country tags on X accounts so we know which country someone is tweeting from.
Too many foreigners on X pretending to be Americans for the sake of creating discord and political violence in the US.
It’s totally out of control.
This is the same Laura Loomer who has spent years railing against any kind of trust & safety interventions as “censorship.” But now that foreign accounts might be saying things she doesn’t like, suddenly identifying foreign influence is a great idea?
Loomer’s demand perfectly encapsulates the broader MAGA approach to foreign influence operations: destroy the systems that actually work, then demand magic solutions when the problem inevitably resurfaces. And, of course, this is leaving out the basic things that anyone with an ounce of knowledge about countering foreign misinformation could tell you including (1) foreign misinfo peddlers tend not to appear in a way that lets platforms know where they’re posting from, and (2) even if they did, they’d immediately switch to VPNs or other methods of cloaking their location soon after.
With MAGA folks in control of all aspects of the government, it was no surprise that they quickly shuttered the Global Engagement Center (GEC) with a bunch of nonsense about how it was against free speech. This ignored the reality, which was that it was created and focused on helping to suss out foreign influence campaigns and to expose them to limit their power.
You know, just like Laura Loomer is now asking to have happen.
Somewhat incredibly, just days after Loomer demanded efforts to identify foreign interference on social media, Marco Rubio’s State Department gleefully announced that the US had withdrawn from an international effort designed to help expose foreign influence campaigns that had been used for years to help expose things like secret ISIS social media campaigns.
Even as the MAGA world is now clamoring for efforts to help expose foreign influence campaigns, they’re still framing efforts that were going on before as… censorship. Here was Marco Rubio lying about the GEC:
Under the previous administration, this office, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving. This is antithetical to the very principles we should be upholding and inconceivable it was taking place in America.
That ends today. Under the administration of President Trump, we will always work to protect the rights of the American people, and this is an important step in continuing to fulfill that commitment.
This is simply, fundamentally untrue. GEC did not work on silencing or censoring Americans. It worked on helping to expose and counter foreign influence campaigns.
As did many trust & safety and integrity teams across the industry, many of which have been dismantled by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, despite their efforts to expose and limit malicious foreign actors. But because of a bad faith campaign (led by MAGA and MAGA-adjacent people) to paint all trust & safety and efforts to counter disinformation as “censorship” now we’re left in a space where the people who were good at exposing these campaigns are gone… but you have people like Loomer demanding that Elon Musk magically do what he’s spent the last couple of years making sure X could no longer do.
This isn’t just run-of-the-mill political hypocrisy. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what foreign influence operations actually look like and how they work.
So now we have the same political coalition that cheered the dismantling of foreign influence research suddenly very concerned about… foreign influence. It’s almost like they never actually cared about the principle of free speech, but rather about ensuring that the speech they liked wasn’t subject to any scrutiny.
Of course, now, the systems and infrastructure that could actually identify foreign manipulation campaigns in a sophisticated way require exactly the kind of research infrastructure that people like Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee spent months attacking. The very people that Jordan and friends called the “censorship cartel” (something they never were) are exactly the folks that actually have expertise in finding foreign disinfo campaigns.
We’re left with what we’ve got: Loomer demanding that Elon Musk implement some kind of country-of-origin tagging system, apparently unaware that such systems are incredibly easy to circumvent with VPNs, and that building effective counter-measures requires exactly the kind of sustained research and institutional knowledge that her political allies just spent years dismantling.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t spend years screaming that any effort to study foreign manipulation is “censorship” and then turn around and demand that platforms magically solve the foreign manipulation problem. Well, you can, but it makes you look like either a hypocrite or someone who never understood the issue in the first place.
The truth is, dealing with foreign influence operations is genuinely difficult and requires nuanced approaches that balance free speech concerns with the need to maintain the integrity of public discourse. It requires sustained research, institutional knowledge, and yes, sometimes it means that platforms need to make difficult decisions about what content to host and how to label it.
But instead of having that conversation, we got years of performative outrage about “censorship” that effectively neutered our ability to deal with foreign manipulation. And now, when the consequences of that approach become apparent, the same people who created this mess are demanding quick fixes.
Of course, now we’ll probably have to sit through years of these same people “discovering” every other aspect of content moderation and foreign influence operations as if they’re the first ones to think of it.
