Free speech used to justify corporate profit

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

And sometimes, an unequal and remarkably revealing reaction.

Last week, there was an editorial in this space talking about the Spanish government’s decision to try and put the brakes on the seamy morass of social media sites, and the effects those sites were having on Spanish youth.

“Social media has become a failed state, a place where laws are ignored and crime is endured, where disinformation is worth more than truth and half of users suffer hate speech,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said in a speech at the World Government Summit in Dubai. “A failed state in which algorithms distort the public conversation and our data and images are defied and sold.”

Sánchez added: “Today, our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone: a space of addiction, abuse, pornography, manipulation and violence. We will no longer accept that. We will protect them from the digital Wild West.”

Sánchez promised new rules for social media giants, rules that would make site owners bear legal responsibility for the content they allow to be posted.

A response from at least one social media site owner quickly followed.

X owner Elon Musk wrote on his site that “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and a traitor to the people of Spain,” followed up with “Sánchez is the true fascist totalitarian,” and compared the Spanish actions to censorship by Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

So, why was “free-speech absolutist” Musk so upset about the idea that the owners of sites could be criminally charged for using improper control of site algorithms to tilt comment in one political direction or another, impacting everything from public opinion to voting?

Or that those same site owners would be directly liable for publishing false, defamatory or hateful speech posted by others on their sites?

The answer to both questions is remarkably simple.

Because the truth is that the whole social media house of cards comes crashing down if the websites that publish libel, defamation and hate have to bear responsibility for their own actions.

The problem is that social media sites would have to do much more than offer the lightest possible — and most passive — moderation of their sites.

Instead of reacting to complaints and quickly responding that offensive and libellous comments don’t offend their interpretation of community standards, publicly-traded social media firms would have to actively control libellous comments and violent threats, if for no other reason than to protect their companies and shareholders from charges and fines.

Social media giants might never grow a sense of moral responsibility for the filth and anger they peddle, but they might recognize a fiduciary responsibility as potential fines threaten to nibble ever-larger chunks out of profits and shareholder returns.

It doesn’t, by the way, mean an end to the concept of free speech.

That complaint is merely a handy Trojan Horse that social media executives like to use to make it appear that their actions are noble and high-minded, rather than a blunt protection of the bottom line.

People could still be free to say what they like — but as always, not be free from the potential consequences of that speech.

The only difference would be that the publishers of actionable words wouldn’t be magically free of the consequences of their publication.

Which, by the way, is the world that all other publishers live in.

So it’s no wonder that Musk had an almighty freak-out about Spain’s plans. And that won’t end.

Look for Musk — and other social media execs — to continue to fight tooth and nail to protect the only model that makes their businesses work.