Elon Musk should face “personal sanctions” and even the threat of an “arrest warrant” if he is found to be fomenting public disorder on his social media platform, a former Twitter executive has said.
It cannot be right that the billionaire owner of X and other tech executives are allowed to sow discord without personal risk, writes Bruce Daisley, former Twitter vice president for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, in the Guardian.
He said Prime Minister Keir Starmer should “strengthen” online safety laws and consider whether media regulator Ofcom “is well equipped to deal with the lightning-fast actions of people like Musk”.
“In my experience, that threat of personal sanction is far more effective for executives than the risk of corporate fines,” Daisley writes, arguing that such sanctions could disrupt the jet-setting lifestyles of tech billionaires.
The UK government has called on social media platforms to act responsibly after violent riots erupted in the country following the fatal stabbing of three young people at a Taylor Swift-themed Christmas dance class in Southport last month. The prime minister has blamed social media companies for allowing false claims to spread that the attacker was an asylum seeker and police are increasingly pursuing those suspected of using online posts to incite violence.
In one post, Musk wrote: “civil war is inevitable” in the UK – language that Justice Minister Heidi Alexander called “unacceptable”. Musk has called Starmer “a two-tier guy” and a “hypocrite” for his approach to policing. Musk also shared a fake post suggesting Starmer was planning to set up “detention camps” in the Falkland Islands – a post he later deleted.
Daisley, who worked at Twitter, now X, from 2012 to 2020, describes Musk as someone who “has taken on the aura of a teenager on the bus with no headphones on, making a lot of noise.”
He added: “If Musk continues to cause unrest, a warrant for his arrest might put him off his game, but as an international jet-setter it would have the effect of focusing his mind.”
“Musk’s actions should be a wake-up call for the Starmer government to quietly legislate to take back control of what we collectively agree is permissible on social media,” he argues.
Daisley says: “The question we are faced with is whether we are prepared to allow a billionaire oligarch to camp off the coast of the UK and attack our society. The idea that a boycott, whether by users or high-profile advertisers, is our only sanction clearly makes no sense.”
He continues: “In the short term, Musk and his fellow executives must be reminded of their criminal liability for their actions under existing laws. Online Safety Act of 2023 “should be strengthened with immediate effect.”
Referring to X’s algorithm, which he says prioritizes Musk’s own tweets, he writes: “Musk can force his angry tweets to appear at the top of your timeline, but the will of a democratically elected government should mean more than the fury of a tech oligarch — even him.”
Ofcom should have the right to demand that certain voices, “such as Tommy Robinson’s, be removed from platforms,” he argues.
He continues: “Despite attempts to position ‘freedom of speech’ as a philosophical conviction, the reason for its popularity among tech companies is pure and simple: it is cheap.
“The approach taken by tech companies has less to do with deep principles and more to do with money, as evidenced by the growing support for Trump in the San Francisco venture capital community.
“We have been hesitant to label tech billionaires as oligarchs because people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey wielded their political power with finesse. Holding oligarchs accountable for what their platforms enable is straightforward and entirely possible.”
