Has Elon Musk raised the free-speech stakes?

Elon Musk, owner of X Corp. (former Twitter), announced a step no other social media platform seems willing to take. He will fund the expenses of anyone whose employers “treat” them “unfairly” by reason of their activities on Platform X. Most remarkably, he said, “No limit.” His announcement drew several “where do I go” outcries – and an outcry of a different kind from a prominent influencer whom Twitter itself treated unfairly before Musk bought the company. X Corp.’s present treatment of her raises the immediate question of whether Musk means what he says.

What Elon Musk said

At 11:00 p.m. EDT August 5, Elon Musk posted this annoucement:

Early the next morning one Austen Allred, head of the Bloom Institute of Technology, hailed the announcement. He made a pithy observation, to which Elon Musk replied with an even stronger message.

Several X users, high-profile and low-, responded immediately, according to The Gateway Pundit, and continued responding throughout the day. All told tales of suspension, disciplinary action, and other such unfair treatment by a variety of firms. The common thread in all these cases was some challenge to a prevailing narrative. For example, Mary Talley Bowden, M.D., an internist at The Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas, lost her hospital privileges. Worse than that, someone reported her to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. What had she done? Treated people early for coronavirus infection and expressed doubts about coronavirus vaccines.

The complex of posts connected to the above post includes this announcement from The Methodist Hospital public relations office.

Other complaints about unfair treatment came from a performing artist,

and a National Stock Car Racing driver.

Assemblyman Ben Geller (R-Dutchess Co., N.Y.) announced his own lawsuit, which he filed in Hudson County, New Jersey.

Apart from that, one user suggested that Musk should start proceeding against BlackRock and Vanguard.

Laura Loomer protests

But by far the most famous – and most discomfiting – reply Elon Musk has so far gotten, came from Laura Loomer.

In reply to this, a physician, presumably from Denmark, challenged Elon Musk as possibly insincere.

Recently she received a sanction on her account after she shared some graphic photographs of the surgical mutilation that falls under the rubric of “gender affirming care.” However, as one user pointed out, she was good enough to flag her photographs as Not Safe For Work.

A few other users suggested that Elon Musk was not responsible for what happened to Laura Loomer before he bought the company. Ms. Loomer received a number of other unsympathetic replies from users who felt she deserved what she got.

Elon Musk, you should settle

Elon Musk has staked his reputation as never before with this declaration. Several people are already applying to him, however informally, for possible funding.

At the same time, Twitter’s treatment of Laura Loomer continues to stain the reputation of the company. They did ban Loomer from the platform, even while she ran for Congress both times. Her statement that Twitter bears liability for the “stealing” of her two elections might be an exaggeration. Twitter could have had nothing to do with the irregularities in ballot processing in Orange County, Florida, in her primary. But Twitter does bear responsibility for enabling her opponents to raise their baseline and thus make election fraud easier.

CNAV offers this business advice to Musk, based on common business sense and the reality of public perception. We believe that Musk should instruct the X Corp. general counsel to contact Laura Loomer’s attorney(s) to discuss settlement. Laura Loomer has a legitimate grievance against the company. Here Musk pledges to help others fight censorship in court, but says his company cannot afford to make her whole. That looks bad, and nothing can make it look good. Restoring the Laura Loomer account stopped the tort from doing further damage but does not repair the damage done. We therefore advise: settle.

Furthermore, X Corp. still has troublemakers on its Trust and Safety Team – perhaps both human and “artificial intelligence.” X Corp. must root them out, to keep its message consistent and to avoid further liability for breach of contract.

What does this gesture mean?

Aside from lingering disputes between X and its users, a social media platform could not make a stronger gesture. Andrew Torba at the Gab Empire should watch closely to see what cases Elon Musk pursues, and with what result. Thus far, Gab Social does not have a large-enough following to attract much notice. The search engines report no cases in which a Gab user suffered wrongful dismissal, discipline, or other sanction for:

• Having a Gab user account,
• Liking, “saluting,” or leaving an otherwise positive reaction to a Gab post, or
• Posting any particular content to Gab.

So Gab can afford to bide its time while it seeks user growth. But it might not be able to afford to ignore Musk’s gesture completely.

Recall also that X Corp. is suing the notorious Center for Countering Digital Hate, for breach of contract in aid of their basic mission – to shut down all social-media platforms except those that toe their line.

Clearly Elon Musk now seeks to distinguish himself from other social media – like Facebook and YouTube. His lawsuit, and now his willingness to fund other anti-censorship lawsuits, suggest he’s gone to war. Why he has so chosen, is still not clear. But the question remains: does he mean what he says? This goes beyond whether he will follow through with his latest declaration. It goes to other gestures made or left unmade.

If you’re all-in,…

To succeed, Musk must be consistent, and go all-in. First, that means settling with Laura Loomer. Next it means stripping down the X Rules to make them consistent with, say, Gab’s rules. That includes a moratorium on enforcement action in all but obvious criminal and privacy-invasion cases, pending this revision. And obviously it means scrubbing all AI and other code that enforces the same algorithm “Old Twitter” used in its “State actor” days.

Third, it means following through with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and other surviving members of the Disinformation Dozen. Already Kennedy is suing Google and YouTube for their role in the Censorship Industrial Complex. Elon Musk should support that lawsuit and similar actions against other social media companies who play the same role. Otherwise his declaration looks like a self-serving marketing ploy of little value to anyone – and therefore of no value to his company. Those who have grievances against X/Twitter or any other social media will be watching.