• Rich Barlow

    Senior Writer

    Rich Barlow

    Rich Barlow is a senior writer at BU Today and Bostonia magazine. Perhaps the only native of Trenton, N.J., who will volunteer his birthplace without police interrogation, he graduated from Dartmouth College, spent 20 years as a small-town newspaper reporter, and is a former Boston Globe religion columnist, book reviewer, and occasional op-ed contributor. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 10 comments on Does Twitter, under Elon Musk, Need Government Regulation?

  1. I wonder. If we go the path the government can regulate private business, who will be regulating regulators?
    By saying someone may be mislead by a tweet, we demean and mock all the people by regarding their intelligence as inferior.

    All persons should have the right to say what they want. The Constitution provides limitations of free speech. Isn’t it sufficient? I agree with the writer that many groups that did not have a voice, now can freely express themselves

    1. Just FYI, the Supreme Court exceptions to free speech protections do not actually limit what people say on social media platforms because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That means that Twitter itself cannot be held legally responsible for hate speech, defamation, incitement, etc. Typically, social media companies do have some sort of content moderation, but because they are not responsible for the content of users’ posts, there is no legal incentive to do so.

    1. Twitter has been the amoral cesspool of humanity since it was put in place. I do not think Musk or anyone can change the use of the platform. The quote I use for Twitter is as follows: “a drunk man’s words are a sober man’s thoughts.” Twitter has always been that drunk.

  2. I have two main issues with this article.

    The first being the obvious bias in the leading questions, props to the interviewees for answering the the neutral question and not falling bait to letting someone else define “risky” content.

    Second, did anyone else’s parents/teachers growing up teach them, “don’t believe everything you read” on the internet? My first amendment right doesn’t go away when you choose to believe what I say. Twitter is not the news. It’s media… for your entertainment. If everything that was entertaining was true we wouldn’t have movies. My point is do your own homework. Just because someone else is a moron and ethically immoral, as in the insulin example, doesn’t mean you have to believe what they say is true at first glance.

  3. Are you kidding me? Now that there’s a change in Twitter’s corporate governance that doesn’t uphold the liberal monopoly on information, we need government intervention? Does this not sound a bit Orwellian to the author? How many times did Dorsey/Agrawal’s Twitter censor perfectly legitimate pieces, or allow borderline libelous pieces to stay? And God forbid you hold a traditional view of, well, anything–such perspectives were heretofore inadmissible into the public square. And how sanctimonious is it to suggest that your ideas are so infallible as to need legal protections? Once upon a time, I would be banned for suggesting that COVID vaccines did not prevent transmission. I’d be banned for suggesting that cloth masks provided no protection. I’d be banned for suggesting that Hunter Biden might be up to something. All true, by the way. Misinformation should be extirpated, but clearly conflicts of interests and ulterior motives polluted old Twitter’s notions of it. In loosening restrictions, Musk has (bravely) forfeited his power to the masses, democratizing communication. You’ll get some bad actors and trolls, and the check mark gimmick was a disaster, but to suggest that government should be colluding with private companies to monitor information is asinine and dangerous.

  4. I do not believe the government needs to get involved in Twitter. Twitter’ isn’t perfect, but nothing in this world really is. It’s done just fine without interference from politics. Let’s keep it that way.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *