Last Friday, Elon Musk agreed with Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson that social media content moderation is often sinister and provides the federal government with an avenue to illegally and secretly censor people. The irony is that Davidson’s account is currently locked on Musk-owned Twitter for an ideological thought crime, and Musk has made no move to reinstate Davidson, despite Musk’s bold “free speech” brand campaign.
Stanford University professor, physician, epidemiologist, and health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya shared an article written by Davidson on Twitter with a quote from Davidson’s piece: “The entire concept of ‘content moderation’ is a euphemism for censorship by social media companies that falsely claim to be neutral and unbiased … They provide cover for a policy of pervasive government censorship.”
I should have been more clear in my original post that I oppose content moderation on science, medicine, and policy issues. Apologies for not being clear. https://t.co/6ib4anij8q
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) February 19, 2023
Musk responded to the Tweet, agreeing with Davidson’s statement and writing, “There is harmful content moderation too, but yes.” Bhattacharya answered back to Musk, “Yes, content moderation to remove violent threats, child porn, etc. is good. Government induced viewpoint discrimination on scientific and policy matters not so much.”
Yes, content moderation to remove violent threats, child porn, etc. is good. Government induced viewpoint discrimination on scientific and policy matters not so much.
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) February 19, 2023
Davidson’s account has been locked since last March, and his suspension
