Elon Musk is taking an increasingly combative approach against what he claims are government efforts to censor posts on his social media platform X, as the billionaire engages in public battles with political figures over the issue.
X has attacked “takedown” requests in Brazil, India and Australia in recent weeks, after authorities demanded the removal of content on the site they deem as illegal or harmful.
Its owner, a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist, has gone further, labelling Brazil’s supreme court judge Alexandre de Moraes a “dictator” and Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, a “censorship commissar”.
In one of these disputes, an Australian legal hearing began on Friday to determine whether X must scrub footage of a violent attack in Sydney from the platform.
As with similar requests worldwide, X removed the tweets locally so the videos can no longer be seen in Australia, but is challenging demands from Inman Grant to take the footage down globally.
At the hearing, the government argued the case was not about “free speech” but the application of existing laws. X called the government’s approach “startling”.
“This is a dangerous precedent,” Nick Pickles, X’s head of global government affairs told the Financial Times. “It’s really dangerous for a global internet, press freedom and political debate everywhere.”
“It’s vital that democratic governments don’t unwittingly endorse or adopt the policies of governments who do not want to protect the open, global internet.”
Free speech activists along with some digital rights experts and academics have applauded Musk’s approach. However, critics argue he and X have only launched their challenges selectively.
The moves are likely to complicate Musk’s expansive business interests. In India, where he is seeking to build a Tesla electric-car plant, X has walked a delicate line of highlighting takedown requests while complying with government demands. Such disputes may also cause advertisers to pull back.
The battles come as Musk is under pressure to show the platform can make profits under his leadership, following his $44bn takeover in October 2022.
Nu Wexler, partner at Four Corners Public Affairs who previously worked in policy communications for Twitter, said: “The more transparency the better. The companies that are more likely to disclose takedown requests will receive fewer requests because governments would rather keep the process behind closed doors.”
But Wexler added Musk is “cherry picking” when to push back or disclose requests based on criteria that are unclear. “If a government wants something taken down, the calculus at [X] is now: is that country going to buy electric cars from us?” he added.
Decisions on how to handle requests are taken by Musk, together with chief executive Linda Yaccarino, and others in the government affairs and legal teams including Pickles, the company says.
Social media companies have faced an increasing number of takedown requests, according to experts. Countries such as India and Turkey have also introduced stringent social media legislation that critics say can be abused to silence dissidents. Penalties for non-compliance include fines and the threat that staff are arrested. Some regimes require companies to have local offices in that jurisdiction, a phenomenon colloquially dubbed “hostage laws”.
“The trend is absolutely towards different governments looking for more levers to enforce requests or enforce online laws,” Pickles said. “We risk a race to the bottom, with ever more aggressive sanctions being used to try and control the global internet without respect for global norms and free expression.”
X has removed some of its processes around addressing government takedown requests under Musk.
This week, the European Commission sent X a request for information on its moderation capabilities, after it curtailed its content moderators by about 20 per cent since October.
X has also taken some measures that has made it harder for outsiders to understand when it complies with takedown requests.
In April 2023, the company announced it would no longer publish its twice-yearly transparency report, which broke down the number of requests by country and shared figures on compliance. The same month, it ceased sending data on its takedown notices to Lumen, a database collected by Harvard University.
The moves came as a report by Rest of World, citing Lumen data, found that, in the first six months of Musk’s ownership, the company had complied with more than 80 per cent of government takedown requests, up from about 50 per cent prior to his takeover.
Platforms such as Meta and Google’s YouTube have long published data on the number of requests they receive from governments, which include copyright and law enforcement requests, and whether they have complied — but share little else.
Udbhav Tiwari, director of global product policy at Mozilla, said there are signs X is less likely to follow through on its public attacks against takedown requests with legal action under Musk.
“There’s a lot of evidence to show that Twitter was more litigious in the past if you look at how many cases they took to court,” Tiwari said. “Independently of tweeting about things . . . actually taking governments to court is really important.”
In Brazil, Musk initially said the platform would not comply with court orders requiring the company block accounts believed to belong to certain far-right users, arguing the orders violated the country’s laws. X later reversed course and agreed to comply — but is appealing against the court’s decision. Musk has won backing from supporters of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro in the process.
X has also published takedown requests from authorities including India’s election commission, complying with the orders while making clear it disagrees with them. These included recent posts from several opposition figures — one calling Narendra Modi a “thief” — as well as posts from the prime minister’s party.
Musk argued X has little choice in India but to comply. After the company refused takedown requests in 2021, Modi’s government toughened rules including potential criminal liability for social media executives.
“It’s a private corporation owned by one individual and the direction can change very quickly,” Prateek Waghre, executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation.
“We don’t know and we probably won’t even find out when factors considering other businesses become a significant input into their decision-making. It does create skewed incentives for X, which is concerning.”
Additional reporting by Nic Fildes in Sydney and Michael Pooler in São Paulo
Read the full article here