No ‘X factor’ — reconciling freedom and accountability

The Guardian’s decision to step away from X may be a first step towards restoring accountability in the public sphere

It is important to understand that the freedom of speech is not a laissez-faire act where anything goes, but a democratically enabling idea that shuns censorship and the curbing of ideas being debated in the public sphere. Recently, the British media outlet, The Guardian, took a decision to stop posting on the social media platform X( formerly Twitter), from its official handles.

The British legacy media organisation issued a statement that needs to be read carefully. It read: “This is something we have been considering for a while given the often-disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The U.S. presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.”

Also Read | Guardian quits Elon Musk-owned X, citing racism and conspiracy theories

Not the first case

It is pertinent to remember that The Guardian is not the first major news organisation to leave the social media platform. In the United States, the NPR became the first major English-language news outlet to leave X in April 2023, in protest at Musk’s ownership. Another public broadcaster PBS followed suit. A report in the Nieman Lab, based on an internal memo of the NPR, revealed that traffic had dropped by only a single percentage point as a result of leaving X. In September 2023, Mashable carried a report that explained how X is losing its daily active users under the leadership of Mr. Musk.

Why should we look at this development closely and unpack the arguments put forth by Mr. Musk? First, it is not just some of the legacy media organisations such as NPR, PBS and The Guardian that have left the social media platform due to its intrinsic toxic content. Hate speech watchdog, The Center for Countering Digital Hate, (CCDH), quit the platform citing concerns that “upcoming changes to the platform’s terms of service could hinder the nonprofit’s ability to prevail in court battles”. Under the new terms, all legal disputes related to X will be brought exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas or state courts in Tarrant County, Texas. The CCDH’s statement reveals the looming danger: “Now, the billionaire will be able to bring lawsuits to friendly courts against whoever disagrees with him on his platform. We made the decision to leave X because the platform has declined further.”

These developments are happening when legacy media is under severe financial strain and social media platforms are witnessing an enviable technology-enabled reach. Research shows how social media algorithms and fake news are connected. They are fuelled by the new partisan owners of these platforms. These platforms cite freedom of speech to perpetuate hate, disinformation, misinformation and chaos. Most of the retweets of Mr. Musk prioritise free speech over truth and social responsibility. The idea of reconciling freedom and responsibility is absent in his narrative.

Also Read | X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge’s content orders

Democracy and credible information

There is an organic relationship between a vibrant democracy and a credible information ecology. This writer has written extensively elsewhere on the role played by the media in helping people make informed choices. The idea of choosing something based on evidence is central to legacy media; and the idea of pushing someone’s whims and fancies through technological manipulations is the operative element of social media platforms. When we are talking about the pitfalls of the algorithm-driven social media, we are not whitewashing the failures of legacy media. The blinkers in the legacy media are manifold: the echo chamber, the revenue crunch, the shift from extensive reporting to focus on opinions, and its strategic silences on key issues. The strategic silences vary for different countries: it can be Gaza for the western media and the dilution of Article 370 for the Indian media. But social media platforms do not provide an answer to these vexatious questions. On the other hand they tend to conflate issues, eradicate the space for reconciliation and healing, and valorise the aggrandisement of power at the cost of empowerment. It is indeed true that legacy media does get influenced by the immense reach of social media.

Also Read | Bluesky attracts millions as users leave Musk’s X after Trump win

Findings of a study

A study by Julia Cagé, Professor, Department of Economics, Sciences Po, Paris, and her team showed how X sets the agenda for the mainstream media and how journalists’ reliance on X might distort the information they produce when compared to what citizens actually need. This study casts doubts on the business model of the legacy media as well as on the welfare effects of the platforms. It questioned whether citizens would be better informed in the absence of X, and whether social media may be harmful to both journalism and democracy. By weaponising social media as a vital symbol of freedom of speech, we are undermining a crucial aspect that governs our public sphere — accountability. The Guardian’s decision may be a first step towards restoring accountability.

A.S. Panneerselvan is a Fellow at Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai

Published - November 19, 2024 01:30 am IST