.gif)
Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump are currently having a conversation on X. Before diving too deeply into analyzing it, I wanted to make sure you’re aware it’s happening. You can listen to it here: https://x.com/i/spaces/1nAKEpNkLwoxL
One thing to note: European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Thierry Breton, was so concerned about the potential for misinformation that a warning letter was sent before the conversation even began.
For full transparency, I didn’t vote for President Trump, nor do I plan to. But as a journalist, it’s my job to ensure that democracy doesn’t operate in darkness.
If the media refuses to show a person’s character and actions for what they truly are, that person will find alternative, often underground, ways to communicate. The ability to speak freely is essential.
Not only was my own account attacked for making a joke (a pretty mild one, at that), but several other accounts were silenced as well for criticizing a European Commission head who has no authority over U.S. citizens, representing a branch of bureaucracy that many probably hadn’t even heard of before now.
Suppressing discussions on disagreements only hinders finding a middle ground. A community includes people you disagree with. You don’t have to listen or support them, but silencing them won’t change their minds or stop the actions people fear. Bad and terrible people will do bad and terrible things whether or not they’re allowed to speak publicly about it.
But I’m not here to convince you with passion alone.
Consider the importance of free speech throughout history. In medieval and early modern England, speaking against the monarchy could be considered treason, often punishable by death. John Stubbs, for instance, lost his hand for criticizing Queen Elizabeth I’s proposed marriage to a French Catholic prince, a stark reminder of the severe restrictions on speech during Tudor times. As the English Civil War unfolded in the 1640s, leaders like John Lilburne were imprisoned for advocating broader democratic reforms and greater freedom of expression, laying the groundwork for the civil liberties that would follow.
The revolution of 1688 marked a turning point, leading to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1689. This document began to guarantee certain freedoms, including free speech in Parliament, setting the stage for broader democratic rights. The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735, a New York printer, was a landmark case for freedom of the press in pre-revolutionary America. Zenger was acquitted of libel charges for publishing criticisms of the colonial governor, establishing the principle that truth is a defense against libel and setting a precedent for freedom of the press.
Fast forward to more recent history, and we see similar patterns. In 2013, Edward Snowden exposed the NSA’s global surveillance programs, sparking worldwide debate on privacy and government overreach—what he revealed was mild compared to today’s surveillance standards. The tragic case of Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who died in custody in 2017 after being imprisoned by the Chinese government for advocating democracy, further underscores the dangers of silencing dissent. Similarly, the imprisonment and subsequent death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2024 highlighted the lengths authoritarian regimes will go to suppress opposition. And the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 serves as a chilling reminder of the risks faced by those who dare to speak out against oppressive governments.
These historical examples highlight a recurring theme: when free speech is suppressed, it often leads to greater oppression, and the consequences are dire. But the importance of free speech is not just a matter of history—it’s a pressing concern today, especially in the digital age where social media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and even swaying elections.
The influence of social media on political discourse and elections cannot be overstated. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and others have immense power in determining which voices are amplified and which are silenced. This power becomes particularly concerning when one political party or group can manipulate these platforms to suppress dissenting opinions. If advertisers are pressured or prevented from supporting content that is unpopular or controversial, it amounts to a form of social engineering. This manipulation of public discourse can skew perceptions, influence voters, and ultimately undermine the democratic process. When elections are swayed by these forces, they are no longer a true reflection of the will of the people—a representative democracy in name only.
This is where initiatives like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) come into play. While GARM was initially designed to create industry-wide standards for content moderation, it quickly became controversial. Critics argued that GARM enabled collusion between regulators and corporate advertisers to censor media under the guise of “harmful content.” By setting broad and often vague definitions, GARM allowed powerful entities to control what information could be published and monetized online. This led to legal challenges and the alliance’s eventual disbandment, sparking a lasting debate about the balance between content regulation and the preservation of an open and free media landscape.
The current proceedings against X by the European Commission under the Digital Services Act (DSA) reflect broader concerns about how digital platforms operate within legal frameworks designed to protect users and maintain transparency. This investigation could lead to significant regulatory actions, raising important questions about the global reach of such regulations—especially when they affect American companies and, by extension, American citizens.
Think about that—a European Commission regulating an American company. It’s one thing to say a company can’t do business without following regulations; it’s another to suggest that everyone must follow the laws of places where they don’t hold citizenship.
But back to the X space with Elon and Trump.
By listening in, I was able to hear clearly Trump’s policies: he’s planning the largest deportation of non-citizen criminals in history, building an iron dome, and preventing World War III by ensuring Russia, China, and Iran don’t collaborate. Oh, and he’s going to fix the economy and maybe put Elon in charge of dismantling the Department of Education. What he said was largely opinion. He wasn’t spreading lies or misinformation. Some of the things he said were accurate.
It’s remarkable that I, and 1.3 million others who tuned in, were able to listen to all of that, and the world didn’t end, nor did my ears bleed.
