Elon Musk has a problem, and it’s one he created by trying to sell two incompatible ideas at the same time. He champions nationalism, borders, sovereignty, and the idea that nations should control their own rules and destiny. Fine. But he also runs a supranational communications platform and markets it as the “global town square” (more like a global Wetherspoons), meaning one borderless space where his definition of free speech applies to everyone.
Those two things can’t both be true. Sovereignty doesn’t just mean waving flags and feeling important. It means each country gets to make and enforce its own laws, including laws about harassment, intimidation, incitement, and criminal content. If you genuinely support sovereignty, you don’t get to squeal when sovereign states insist your platform follows their rules.
And this isn’t theoretical anymore. The UK is probing X under the Online Safety Act over AI deepfake content, and X is moving to comply with UK law. Musk has basically said he’ll comply where things are illegal. Which is an odd thing to present as a concession, because that’s what “law” means. It’s not an optional extra like heated seats. You don’t get to run a platform in a country and then act surprised when the country expects you to obey its laws.
What makes it funnier is that he’s complaining about censorship at the same time. So he’s demanding sovereignty for nations, while fuming when sovereign nations enforce it on him. It’s like insisting everyone should have their own front door key, then having a tantrum because you can’t wander into their kitchen whenever you fancy.
That’s the trap. “Free speech within the law” sounds perfectly reasonable until you remember there isn’t one law. There are hundreds. What’s protected speech in the US can be unlawful in Germany, actionable in the UK, and politically explosive elsewhere. So “free speech” stops being a principle and turns into a compliance spreadsheet, with inconsistent enforcement and permanent accusations of bias. The more “global” you are, the less coherent your rules become.
The pantomime ends completely when the platform is implicated in something plainly criminal. AI generated sexualised imagery, including minors, isn’t “debate”. It’s police work, liability, and enforcement. There’s no heroic free speech posture that survives contact with criminal reality, and Musk has already had to do public damage control on that front because even his most loyal fans tend to go a bit quiet when the subject is child abuse material.
Then there’s the grooming gangs rhetoric, which he’s leaned into because it’s the perfect culture war accelerant. “Protect the children” is emotionally irresistible, and it’s also the oldest censorship lever in the book. Once you start swinging that hammer, you don’t get to act shocked when governments pick it up and use it on your platform, especially when the harm is real and the law is engaged.
So Musk ends up trapped between two outcomes. If he complies with national law, his free speech fans call it censorship. If he refuses, he’s effectively claiming a private company can override sovereign democratic states, which is political authority without consent. Either way, the “global town square” fantasy collapses into what it always was: a private power deciding what speech gets amplified, then pretending it’s neutral because it sounds nicer.
Musk wanted to be the man who liberated speech. Instead he’s discovered the oldest political fact there is. Once you control the biggest megaphone on earth, you don’t get to pretend you’re not part of the state. You’re just doing politics in a hoodie, with a ban button.
No comments:
Post a Comment