Elon Musk bought Twitter in order to save the world from the tyranny that would inevitably follow a loss of free speech on the internet. At least, that’s Elon’s narrative. But according to Twitter’s own self-reported data, Twitter fully complied with 83% of government requests and court orders since Elon took control of the company. In contrast, Twitter reported approximately 51% compliance in its last report before Elon’s acquisition. That means Elon’s Twitter is 32% more compliant with government information & censorship requests than pre-Elon Twitter.

And just last week, Twitter censored 409 tweets in Turkey ahead of the country’s presidential election. So is Elon’s free speech advocacy narrative a lie?

Not exactly. Elon has clearly stated from the beginning that his definition of free speech was speech which matches the law. In other words, he was advocating for social media to allow all legally allowable speech, but he wasn’t arguing that social media companies should go spurn the law.

That meant, for example, that Twitter shouldn’t unilaterally decide to ban a U.S. president, but should, for example, still respond to court orders to remove defamatory tweets.

If someone is a free speech absolutist, as Elon Musk has sometimes claimed to be, then it is fair to criticize him for not allowing ALL speech, regardless of whether or not it is legal. But such a criticism would be impractical because Twitter would soon be shut down in every country in the world for violating local laws. It’s also ironic that some of the same people now criticizing Elon for complying with government censorship requests have previously argued that “billionaires are not elected officials, so why should they be making decisions on how our society is run?”

Still, there is an unignorable moral dilemma that arises when deciding whether abiding by the laws of the land is a good policy for media companies operating in a country like Turkey which has been slipping into authoritarianism over the past several years under president Erdogan. Can you really claim to be a free speech absolutist if you help governments censor investigative journalists before an election?

Here is how Twitter’s global affairs department responded to criticism of Twitter’s actions to censor certain tweets and accounts in Turkey:

“We received what we believed to be a final threat to throttle the service–after several such warnings–and so in order to keep Twitter available over the election weekend, [we] took action on four accounts and 409 Tweets identified by court order.”

Three of the accounts referenced were:

• The account of Muhammed Yakut, a Kurdish businessman who has criticized Turkish incumbent president Erdogan’s regime.
• The account of Cevheri Guven, an investigative journalist.
• An anonymous influencer account of a self-described activist and freedom fighter in Turkey.

The fourth is unknown.

Appendix: Elon’s Message to Advertisers After His Acquisition of Twitter

“The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence. There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society… That is why I bought Twitter… I didn’t do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love… That said, Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences! In addition to adhering to the laws of the land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all, where you can choose your desired experience according to your preferences…”

Elon Musk’s message to advertisers