Summary
Elon Musk confirmed that X (formerly Twitter) deprioritizes posts containing links, encouraging users to post links in replies instead.
This practice, aimed at keeping users on the platform, has drawn criticism for restricting access to external information and harming media outlets’ traffic.
Past reports revealed X also delayed links to rival platforms and news outlets, prompting concerns about press freedom and revenue impacts.
The Guardian recently left X, labeling it “toxic,” while other media and free speech advocates accuse the platform of enabling disinformation and controlling narratives.
Interesting. One of the primary defenses against attempts to hold platform operators liable for the content on their platform is that they operate like common carriers (e.g. telephone companies), in that they don’t curate content, or any curation is the byproduct of algorithmic engines (e.g. you see posts that are currently popular).
They have simultaneously argued that they shouldn’t be regulated like common carriers because that would be harmful to the public and not appropriate for… reasons, I suppose.
This admission contradicts the first point and drives home the need for net neutrality like regulations for platforms. Not only are they interfering with the free flow of information, contrary to their whole “freedom of speech for all” branding, they are admitting that it is for purely business reasons (as opposed to moderating community standards or hate speech, which they have resisted and labeled censorship).
Fwiw, net neutrality is “law” right now. I wonder if affected media companies have a tort that they could sue Twitter under.
I’m sure Twitter is going to delay delay delay but still…
Ninja edit: law is in quotes since this is an FCC ruling (I don’t know if that’s the right word) and not sure how stable that is with Chevron overturned.
I thought that only applies to ISPs and not to platforms (Twitter, FB, Threads, etc)
Even if Chevron hadn’t been overturned, it would have been as stable as it was before: able to be reversed by a Republican head of the FCC, just like it was last time.