Entrepreneur Elon Musk has become a conservative hero via his purchase of Twitter and unveiling of prior censorship by the social media giant. Musk again underlined his appeal here on Thursday, tweeting his support for House Republicans in their oversight of speech issues.
Some of what Musk has uncovered is disturbing. The American tradition of speech is rightly unique. It is rightly not that of Western Europe, for example, where controversial speech is corralled and deterred in the presumptive public interest. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the 2011 Supreme Court case of Snyder v Phelps, the First Amendment centers on how, "as a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
CHINA WARNS NO CLIMATE COOPERATION WITHOUT OTHER US CONCESSIONS
Except there's a problem. Musk's commitment to free speech isn't as dedicated as he would have us imagine. Musk has used his ownership of Twitter to censor those who he believes are treating him unfairly. He appears to have acceded to autocratic censorship requests by governments like that of Turkey. Most worrisome, Musk has shown a decidedly conciliatory stance toward the world's greatest adversary of human freedom, Communist China.
Shown most recently by his visit to Beijing in May, Musk's stance on China is primarily motivated by his significant commercial interests there. Still, Musk took his pro-China stance to another level in a remarkable Twitter stream on Thursday. As the South China Morning Post reports, Musk said he's "kind of pro-China" and claimed that Beijing was "definitely interested in working in a cooperative international framework" on artificial intelligence governance as part of "team humanity."
This rhetoric is striking in its delusion. Considering his obvious intellect, we must assume Musk is being disingenuous here. After all, Beijing has made quite clear that its overriding interest in all matters of politics, society, economy, and foreign policy is the central, immutable authority of the Communist Party under Xi. Don't take my word for it. Take Xi's.
On Thursday, Beijing released its AI governance rules. The rules require all Chinese AI activities to "adhere to core socialist values," avoid material that "incites subversion of state power and the overthrow of the socialist system, endangers national security and interests, damages the image of the country, incites secession from the country, undermines national unity and social stability," or publishes "false and harmful information."
How does Musk aim to square this catch-all authoritarianism with the First Amendment? He must do so because there is no way that Beijing is giving ground on global AI governance that offers a freer user experience.
When it comes to China's autocratic approach to internet governance, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
A recent Chinese white paper declared the need to "ensure that internet rule of law work is always advancing along the correct political direction." More ironic, considering Musk's righteous aversion to U.S. government "disinformation" protocols, that same white paper hailed those very same U.S. government's efforts! As Beijing's apparatchiks put it, "if the internet is not governed by law, there will be too many hidden dangers, ranging from personal life and property safety to social stability and national security."
Musk doesn't seem to recognize the fundamental incompatibility between what China wants from AI and what free peoples want from AI. Indeed, he doesn't get that at its most basic level, this comes down to a question of human freedom. That was clear when Musk offered the odd observation on Thursday that "Once the very difficult question of Taiwan is resolved, I’m certainly hopeful that relations between the US and China will improve."
How does he see this "question" being resolved?
Musk has previously suggested that a solution might be found by turning Taiwan into a version of Hong Kong. That is to say, by making Taiwan a politically subordinated but generally independent part of Communist China. The problem with this approach should be apparent: China has shown its word cannot be trusted in this regard. Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration treaty governing the United Kingdom's handover of Hong Kong to China, Beijing committed to upholding the city's democratic character until 2047. Instead, it has ruthlessly suppressed Hong Kong's democracy. Beijing is now even hinting at extraterritorial action against democracy activists who have fled to the West.
Put simply, Musk's free speech doctrine needs a little work.