Editorial Ta Nea: Words

Freedom of speech is a concept that is complex.

A classic legal example of its limits is shouting “Fire!” in a packed movie theatre.

In the name of freedom of speech, Swedish authorities granted permission to an anti-Islam politician to go on a tour during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan to burn the Quran, triggering riots and clashes across Sweden.

Elon Musk’s declaration that he will restore freedom of speech on Twitter, which he recently bought, should be viewed with caution.

The problem with the social media is not that they limit freedom of speech, but rather the exploitation of that freedom by fanatics and bigots who disseminate hate speech.

That was the reason that Twitter blocked Donald Trump’s account after the storming of the Capitol building in Washington D.C. last year.

For the same reason, the European Union last month adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), requiring Google and Facebook to moderate illegal content more diligently.

The social media are neither good nor bad a priori.

If they did not exist, on the one hand, Barack Obama may not have been elected president. On the other hand, without them it would have been more difficult for Russia to disseminate conspiracy theories and conduct a digital war against the West.

Everything depends on how the social media are used.

Elon Musk’s announcement that he intends to change Twitter’s algorithms in order to prevent the untrammelled spread of toxic tweets in the name of profit is welcome.

Nevertheless, the concentration of so much power in the hands of a controversial tycoon who has huge business interests in a country with an unfree regime such as China does not bode well for the future.

Today, dialogue is more necessary than ever, but it must be conducted with clear rules.

Words can benefit or harm.

By buying Twitter, Elon must is not simply making an investment. He is undertaking a huge responsibility for the future of democracy.