Dr. Doom states Elon Musk is a ‘lunatic’ on social networks policy

Nouriel Roubini thinks Elon Musk’s choice to purchase Twitter was “a very bad idea,” and he thinks about the Tesla CEO “a bit of a lunatic” when it pertains to managing—or not managing—speech on the social media.

The New York University economic expert, referred to as “Dr. Doom” for his downhearted financial views—he anticipated the 2008 real estate bust and subsequent crisis—sees issues with Musk, a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” managing a significant social networks platform.

“I think, honestly, the guy is a bit of a lunatic when it comes to these views of what is the proper, I would say, regulation of these platforms,” Roubini stated in an interview with Fortune. “There are certain things that are inappropriate, and the current Twitter does its best, not perfectly, to try to limit that stuff.”

Musk, in a note to advertisers on Oct. 27—the day his $44 billion takeover offer was completed—stated he purchased Twitter to “try to help humanity, whom I love,” which he wishes to turn the platform into a “common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence.”

But Twitter experienced a rise in racial slurs and anti-Semitic remarks instantly after Musk took control of, drawing grievances from NBA star LeBron James and other huge names.

Roubini kept in mind that “lots of anti-Semites, racists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis are spreading misinformation that is fed by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea to try to destroy our liberal democracy. And now [Musk is] saying, ‘I want all these people to be allowed to have a platform and spread this misinformation.’”

Musk, in reaction to a rise in N-word use on Twitter after his takeover, pointed to a staff member’s description that “nearly all of these accounts are inauthentic. We’ve taken action to ban the users involved in this trolling campaign—and are going to continue working to address this in the days to come to make Twitter safe and welcoming for everyone.”

He likewise hurried to assure marketers, in his Oct. 27 note, that Twitter would not end up being a “free-for-all hellscape,” including the business would form a material small amounts council “with widely diverse viewpoints” which “no major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.” 

But some significant business are currently leaving the platform. General Motors, Pfizer, Volkswagen, and others have actually paused their marketing on the social media.

While insisting that Twitter won’t end up being a location “where anything can be said with no consequences,” Musk has actually suggested that users will have more freedom to state what they desire, nevertheless offending or deceptive, than they had previously. And he greatly slammed the business’s previous leaders—a few of whom he instantly fired—for being too stringent and suppressive. 

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law,” he tweeted in April. “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

Roubini stated that Musk would, in concept, permit “any form [of] ‘free speech.’” But, he stated, “there’s a limit even to free speech. You’re not allowed to go dressed as a Ku Klux Klan member in front of a Jewish or an African American family with guns threatening them. That’s not acceptable. You want to demonstrate, you’re allowed to demonstrate, but not to physically threaten other individuals in our society. So free speech is not unlimited.”

Shortly after taking control of the platform, Musk dropped tips about how he may resolve the danger of Twitter ending up being too harmful for some users. He recommended that, simply as spectators utilize maturity rankings to choose which movies to view, Twitter users might choose their own levels of material small amounts. 

Central to the concern is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (passed in 1996), which guards web platforms from liability for content published by 3rd parties. 

Roubini disagrees with the legislation and thinks it requires to be customized.

“We will have to rethink that particular section in a way that doesn’t eliminate some of the protection,” he stated, “but doesn’t give protection to the extent that we have today, which essentially allows any type of…disgusting, criminal, violent, threatening messages to be broadcast. That’s not acceptable in any civil society, period.”

Twitter did not return Fortune’s ask for remark.

Sign up for the Fortune Features e-mail list so you don’t miss our most significant functions, unique interviews, and examinations.


News and digital media editor, writer, and communications specialist. Passionate about social justice, equity, and wellness. Covering the news, viewing it differently.

Related Articles

Back to top button