TThe current social media trend is familiar, with self-absorbed individuals posting excessively on the platforms they dominate, a scenario we’ve seen play out in the past. Donald Trump’s incendiary tweets post-election loss resulted in the Capitol siege on January 6, 2021. Following this, the then-president was banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and even Pinterest, disappointing those aiming to emulate the Mar-a-Lago style on their mood boards.

The situation is likely to evolve differently this time, especially with social media provocateur Elon Musk at the helm of the platform he utilizes.

The two are set to engage on Monday, with Musk engaging directly with the former president. “An entertaining encounter is anticipated”.

During Trump’s tenure, I was stationed at Twitter as its highest-ranking official outside the U.S. Over my eight-year tenure, it became apparent that there was a disparity in the interpretation of free speech between the UK and the U.S., with the latter often championing a libertarian outlook on the concept.

As the UK subsidiary of an American entity, we witnessed a daily fervent defense of free speech. Twitter’s founding legal advisor, Alex MacGillivray, famously dubbed the company as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” While the U.S. often assumes its freedoms are unique, the UK’s Human Rights Act of 1998 guarantees freedom of speech while also acknowledging its responsibility, stressing that it should not be used to incite criminal activities or spread hatred.

For American tech firms, the interpretation of “free speech” varies. During my tenure at Twitter under a more enlightened leadership, the UK team quickly realized that the Silicon Valley notion of “free speech” wasn’t always geared towards fostering an ideal world. Instead, it often allowed certain groups to target marginalized sections of society, such as women, the LGBTQ+ community, and ethnic minorities, with impunity, detracting from the platform’s original enjoyable nature.

Working within the UK office felt akin to operating within a parliamentary system devoid of a written constitution, relying more on external expectations to shape the organization’s direction.

Efforts to brand “free speech” as a philosophical conviction notwithstanding, its appeal to tech companies is primarily economic. As journalist Kara Swisher notes, Silicon Valley’s approach is more profit-driven than principle-based, evidenced by the support for Trump within San Francisco’s venture capital realm. Holding tech oligarchs accountable for their platforms’ content is feasible and necessary.

Considerations around Musk’s tweets often offer insights into his actions. For instance, his posts on social media platforms like Instagram highlight his late-night musings, providing clues about his mindset and geographic location. Musk’s propensity for controversial posts and real-world ramifications underscores the need for accountability on social media platforms.

The discussion centers on whether billionaire oligarchs like Musk should be allowed to influence societal discourse unchecked. Calls for regulation and accountability in the social media landscape are imperative to address the challenges posed by influential figures like Musk.

• Bruce Daisley served as Twitter’s vice president for Europe, Middle East, and Africa from 2012 to 2020.

• If you have any comments on the topics discussed in this article and wish to submit a response of up to 300 words for publication in our Letters section, please click here.