{"id":19719,"date":"2022-11-29T21:45:36","date_gmt":"2022-11-29T21:45:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/11\/29\/free-speech\/"},"modified":"2022-11-29T21:45:36","modified_gmt":"2022-11-29T21:45:36","slug":"free-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/11\/29\/free-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Free Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

\"freeNow that Elon Musk<\/a> owns Twitter, there is a great deal of discussion about \u201cfree speech\u201d on both social media and mainstream media. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution<\/a> states, in relevant part, that: \u201cCongress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Here is my take on the debate: The right to free speech does not mean a right of AI algorithm amplification.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the past few weeks, Twitter has reinstated many formerly suspended Twitter accounts including that of Donald Trump<\/a> (who so far hasn\u2019t tweeted). Many advertisers<\/a> representing over a billion dollars in revenue, including Chevrolet, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and Merck have reportedly left the platform and some users are deleting their Twitter accounts, with some moving to Mastodon<\/a>. At the same time, Twitter is reporting a surge in new signups.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Free Speech and AI Amplification<\/h2>\n

I strongly support the idea of free speech. Early in my career, I worked for Knight-Ridder, at the time one of the largest newspaper companies in the world. Free speech and freedom of the press is something I\u2019ve been focused on my entire career.<\/p>\n

While I am adamant that our freedoms be maintained, I also realize that a newspaper company has no obligation to print everybody\u2019s point of view. Similarly, while I support people saying what they want on social media, I do not agree that every dangerous, fake, or crackpot idea deserves amplification by social media companies.<\/p>\n

Sure, anybody can create an account. Fine. But the platforms amplify what\u2019s said <\/a>to people who never chose to follow that account. That\u2019s where social media is different.<\/p>\n

Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms take what people say and sort it via their artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms and then selectively show the content to people based on what they have clicked on in the past. This is not free speech, it\u2019s technological amplification.<\/p>\n

\"johnThose who are susceptible to what the technology serves up to them end up trapped on social media. I do not believe that America is in a free speech crisis. Politicians and others can say what they want, when they want, in many different places, both online and off. Heck, they can even start their own social network like Donald Trump did with his Truth Social.<\/p>\n

Free speech does mean that people and companies can participate on social media (or not). They can choose to advertise (or not). They can choose to partner with a company (or not).<\/p>\n

Free speech does not mean that anybody can say anything they like.<\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, somebody created a fake account for pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co<\/a>., and tweeted: \u201cWe are excited to announce insulin is free now.\u201d This is not free speech.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

What the U.S. courts say about Free Speech<\/h2>\n

Over the years, there have been many challenges to the idea of free speech in the courts. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts<\/a> on behalf of the Federal Judiciary created a list of what free speech is and is not based on court opinions over nearly a century.<\/p>\n

Freedom of speech includes the right:<\/h4>\n