Introduction: A Digital Town Square in Crisis
In October 2022, Elon Musk took control of Twitter and immediately began to overhaul the platform. He promised to restore “absolute free speech,” reversing account bans, downsizing moderation teams, and changing content policies. Some applauded the move, thinking it would finally give users the freedom they’ve been waiting for. Others, however, raised concerns—was this really going to lead to a rise in hate speech and harassment?
Figure 1: Twitter changed its official name to X Corp after Elon Musk bought the company in October 2022. (AFP photo)
This tension is nothing new. Digital platforms have always struggled with a tough balancing act: they need to protect free speech while also limiting harm caused by online abuse and hate speech (Flew, 2021, p. 92). These platforms aren’t neutral spaces; they shape what users see through their algorithms, content rules, and moderation policies, which Flew argues are active forms of control over discourse (Flew, 2021, p. 94). Musk’s vision of Twitter as an open, minimally regulated space may sound appealing, but it raises an important question: can free speech really exist if the platform lacks rules to protect user safety? Musk’s purchase of Twitter represents a radical shift in the platform’s governance, moving away from traditional content moderation strategies and leaning into a more hands-off approach that has sparked global debates about the role of social media in public discourse. (Zhu, 2023)
This blog will explore how Musk’s “free speech” experiment has transformed Twitter—now rebranded as X—and what it reveals about the broader challenges of platform governance in today’s digital world.
Figure 2: Elon Musk had previously pledged to cut back on moderation in an effort to promote free speech. (Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters)
Is “Absolute Freedom” Possible on a Commercial Platform?
Elon Musk’s vision of Twitter as a platform for “absolute free speech” relies on the idea that more freedom in expression will naturally lead to a better digital space for discourse. However, this vision raises an important question: can true freedom of speech exist on a commercial platform like Twitter, where profit motives and user engagement drive decisions?
Flew challenges the notion that platforms can be “neutral intermediaries.” Instead, he argues that digital platforms are active editors of public discourse, shaping what content is visible through algorithms, community guidelines, and enforcement measures. (Flew, 2021, p. 92) This critique directly contradicts the idea of an open, unregulated space for free speech. Flew highlights how even platform design—such as the interface and the prominence given to certain types of content—actively curates the speech users are exposed to. In other words, platforms are not merely neutral spaces where users express themselves freely; they are designed in ways that significantly influence the flow of information. (Flew, 2021, p. 94)
Figure 3: File: Stickmen Free Speech Oppression
Musk’s approach to Twitter, with its reduced moderation and looser rules, might appear to be a step toward unlimited free speech. Yet, Flew’s argument suggests that even in this “free” environment, the platform remains a curated space, shaped by the very algorithms and policies Musk seeks to loosen. Research by Hickey et al. (2023) supports this concern, showing that Musk’s changes to Twitter led to a significant increase in hate speech and bot activity on the platform. Despite the shift towards less moderation, the platform’s algorithmic structure and limited enforcement measures still play a crucial role in amplifying harmful content (Hickey et al., 2023). The result is that, even with reduced content moderation, Twitter/X remains an active participant in shaping the discourse, proving that absolute free speech cannot truly exist in a commercial, algorithm-driven space.
Figure 4: Freedom Of Speech by Flickr
The Rise of Hate Speech and Misinformation
Ever since Elon Musk took the reins at Twitter—now X—he’s been pushing for what he calls “absolute free speech.” That means loosening up content rules, cutting back on moderation teams, and letting conversations run more freely. On the surface, that sounds like a win for open dialogue. But the flip side? It makes it a lot harder to keep a lid on things like hate speech and disinformation.
Here’s where it gets serious. In parts of the world like the Asia-Pacific, where online hate speech is already a huge problem, less moderation can have real-world consequences. Think about the Philippines or Myanmar—platforms like Facebook have been tied to rising tensions, even violence, because of how hate spreads unchecked online (Sinpeng et al., 2021).
This is why one-size-fits-all moderation just doesn’t work. What’s needed are local, culturally aware strategies that can tackle the unique ways harmful content shows up in different countries. Without that, “free speech” risks becoming a cover for letting serious harm slip through the cracks (Sinpeng et al., 2021).
Figure 5: New Twitter owner Elon Musk says impressions of hateful tweets are down by a third from pre-peak levels, although research suggests otherwise. (AFP photo)
However, Musk’s reforms have shifted Twitter/X toward a more universal, less localized moderation policy, which risks amplifying harmful content. The platform’s failure to account for regional differences may worsen the situation, especially in politically unstable regions where unchecked hate speech and misinformation can have disastrous consequences (Sinpeng et al., 2021).
This trend is evident in the sharp rise of hate speech since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Racial slurs against Black Americans jumped from 1,282 to 3,876 per day, and insults against gay men increased from 2,506 to 3,964 daily. Antisemitic posts also spiked by 61% in the two weeks following Musk’s takeover (Frenkel & Conger, 2022). Furthermore, banned accounts linked to extremist groups like ISIS and QAnon have reappeared, reflecting a retreat from previous content moderation standards (Frenkel & Conger, 2022).
These changes, coupled with large-scale layoffs, including content moderation staff (Frenkel & Conger, 2022), have strained Twitter’s ability to manage harmful content effectively. The reduction in resources has further heightened concerns about the platform’s commitment to online safety, as it struggles to cope with the surge in problematic content.
When Advertisers Stop Paying for “Free” Speech
“Free speech” isn’t really free—especially when advertisers are the ones paying for it. When Musk took over Twitter (X) and declared it a haven for “free speech absolutism,” a lot of big-name brands quietly hit the eject button. And for good reason: racial slurs tripled, homophobic and antisemitic speech surged (Frenkel & Conger, 2022), and previously banned extremist accounts—including ones tied to ISIS and QAnon—were let back in. Not exactly a great look if you’re trying to sell toothpaste or sneakers.
At the same time, Musk was slashing moderation teams and pulling X out of key EU co-regulatory frameworks like the Code of Practice on Disinformation (van de Kerkhof, 2025). In a region where platforms are legally expected to deal with hate speech and illegal content, this wasn’t just reckless—it put X directly at odds with the Digital Services Act (DSA). The EU is now investigating X for dodging transparency and failing to moderate illegal speech. Meanwhile, trust in the platform is tanking.
This isn’t a new warning. Facebook already learned the hard way in Asia-Pacific that lax moderation can fuel real-world violence and political unrest (Sinpeng et al., 2021). Instead of applying those lessons, Musk doubled down on a one-size-fits-all model that ignores regional realities. Worse, he’s selectively amplifying voices aligned with his politics, showing that even in a so-called “town square,” not everyone gets the same mic.
So yeah, “free speech” sounds noble—until it starts costing real money. And when even advertisers decide it’s not worth the brand risk, maybe it’s time to admit: what Musk built isn’t a marketplace of ideas. It’s a clearance rack for chaos.
Figure 6: Wendy Kenigsberg / University Photography
The Governance Paradox: Who Gets to Decide What We Can Say?
When Musk talks about “absolute free speech,” it sounds liberating, even noble. But what he glosses over is who actually benefits when moderation disappears. Spoiler alert: it’s usually not the marginalized. As Terry Flew points out, online spaces aren’t neutral public squares—they’re shaped by who’s loudest, most aggressive, and least likely to be penalized (Flew, 2021). In practice, the absence of governance often silences vulnerable voices rather than empowering them.
This paradox gets even messier in places like Asia-Pacific, where Sinpeng et al. found that unmoderated hate speech on platforms like Facebook directly contributed to real-world violence and political instability (Sinpeng et al., 2021). Their report emphasized how critical localized, culturally sensitive moderation is. A one-size-fits-all policy might look fair on paper, but in reality, it’s a fast track to chaos.
Now layer that with new data: Arun et al. actually measured what happened on Twitter/X after Musk relaxed moderation. The result? A measurable spike in hate speech, toxicity, and abuse—especially against minorities. So, while Musk claims to be “freeing” speech, what’s really happening is that bad actors are flooding the zone, and others are retreating. Free speech becomes the freedom to shout, not the freedom to speak (Arun et al., 2024).
The people with the most power to shape speech online—billionaire CEOs—are the ones telling us it’s not their job to decide what’s allowed. But by stepping back, they are deciding. They’re just letting the loudest, angriest voices rule the room. And if platforms don’t step up, the real cost of “freedom” will be the silencing of everyone else.
Figure 7: Platform Governance in Organizations. (Posted by Rey Lugtu)
The Dangers of Unchecked Free Speech
The shift towards less regulated speech on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) under Elon Musk’s leadership raises critical concerns about the rise of harmful content. While Musk promotes “absolute free speech,” the reality is that unchecked freedom can create an environment where hate speech, racism, and harassment flourish. Matamoros-Fernández discusses how platforms can act as amplifiers for race-based controversies, noting that social media often becomes a battleground for circulating discriminatory and racist views. Without adequate moderation, these platforms are increasingly used to spread hateful ideologies that can escalate into real-world harm (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017).
Carlson and Frazer take a closer look at something we often overlook—how social media affects people from marginalized communities, like Indigenous users. When there aren’t clear rules or any real oversight, things can spiral fast. Online spaces start to feel less like communities and more like arenas where group attacks and harassment take over (Carlson & Frazer, 2018).
For folks who are already pushed to the edges of public conversation, this isn’t just annoying—it’s dangerous. Instead of getting the chance to share their views, they’re met with abuse or shut out completely. So while some celebrate “free speech” as a win for everyone, in reality, it often leaves the most vulnerable without a voice.
That’s where Musk’s vision of an open platform hits a wall. If the system rewards the loudest or most aggressive voices, is it really free for all? Without solid protections in place, social platforms can end up doing more harm than good—especially to those who need them most.
Figure 8: Freedom of Expression Dangerous? (By David Inserra)
Conclusion & The Future of Twitter/X: Utopia or Dystopia?
The big question: now that Elon Musk’s running the show at Twitter (or X, if we’re being current), are we heading toward some kind of free speech paradise—or just sliding straight into chaos? Musk has been all-in on the idea of total openness, cutting back on moderation to let more people speak their minds. Sounds empowering, right?
But here’s the catch–less moderation hasn’t just made room for diverse opinions. It’s also opened the floodgates for hate speech, racism, and flat-out misinformation. The idea of free speech is great in theory, but when no one’s steering the ship, things can get ugly fast. Suddenly, a platform that’s supposed to bring people together starts pushing them away. A lot of users are feeling less safe, less welcome, and less likely to join in the conversation.
Figure 9: Twitter Becomes X: The Future Of The ‘Everything App’. (By Kristi Hines)
These issues don’t just stay in the digital realm—they bleed into the real world. The lack of effective regulation on social media not only fuels hate and harassment but also erodes trust in information, which can harm democracy and public decision-making. Will Twitter/X become an ideal space where everyone can freely express themselves, or will it turn into a dystopia filled with toxic content? That’s the big question, one that touches on platform governance, free speech, and how we deal with the responsibilities of these emerging social platforms.
So, what’s next for Twitter/X? Will it continue down this uncertain path, or will it recalibrate its policies to find a balance between freedom and safety? One thing’s for sure—the platform’s future will need thoughtful adjustments to ensure it allows free speech while maintaining the security and trust of its users.
Figure 10: The Future of Twitter (or X). (By Tripepi Smith)
References list：
Arun, A., Chhatani, S., An, J., & Kumaraguru, P. (2024). X-posing free speech: Examining the impact of moderation relaxation on online social networks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (pp. 201–211). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.woah-1.15
Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2018). Social media mob: Being Indigenous online. Sydney: Macquarie University. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/social-media-mob-being-indigenous-online
FMT. (2022, December 6). Study suggests Twitter hate speech is on the rise. Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/top-lifestyle/2022/12/06/study-suggests-twitter-hate-speech-is-on-the-rise/
Flew, T. (2021). Hate speech and online abuse. In Regulating platforms (pp. 91–96). Cambridge: Polity.
Frenkel, S., & Conger, K. (2022, December 2). Hate speech’s rise on Twitter is unprecedented, researchers find. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech-musk.html
Guardian staff and agencies. (2022, October 29). Elon Musk declares Twitter ‘moderation council’ – as some push the platform’s limits. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/28/elon-musk-twitter-moderation-council-free-speech
Hickey, D., Schmitz, M., Fessler, D., Smaldino, P., Murić, G., & Burghardt, K. (2023). Auditing Elon Musk’s impact on hate speech and bots. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 17, pp. 1133–1137). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22222
Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: The mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6), 930–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130
Musk says Twitter to change logo, adieu to ‘all the birds’. (2023, July 23). Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/business/2023/07/23/musk-says-twitter-to-change-logo-adieu-to-all-the-birds/
Sinpeng, A., Martin, F., Gelber, K., & Shields, K. (2021, July 5). Facebook: Regulating hate speech in the Asia Pacific. Final report to Facebook under the auspices of its Content Policy Research on Social Media Platforms Award. Department of Media and Communication, University of Sydney & School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland. https://r2pasiapacific.org/files/7099/2021_Facebook_hate_speech_Asia_report.pdf
van de Kerkhof, J. (2025, January 17). Musk, techbrocracy, and free speech. VerfBlog. https://verfassungsblog.de/musk-techbrocracy-and-free-speech/ https://doi.org/10.59704/0db298323048f15a
Zhu, Y. (2023). Elon Musk’s Twitter buyout: Game-changer in social media. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences, 21, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/21/20230234
Be the first to comment