Musk seems to want to drive everyone but certain types away.
Sometimes, the United States government tells companies not to have dealings with individuals, organizations, companies, or entire countries. These sanctions, if violated, can lead to large fines, even imprisonment. Violating sanctions, especially when national security is the concern, is an incredibly serious charge. Most companies avoid any association with sanctioned groups to avoid these accusations.
Twitter, or X, as Musk says it identifies it as, allegedly gave verification check marks to 28 accounts belonging to or associated with individuals or organizations sanctioned by the U.S. government, according to a report by the Tech Transparency Project. These accounts largely belonged to terrorist leaders and terrorist organizations within Hezbollah, as well as Russian and Iranian government institutions.
Twitter denies wrongdoing, but also acted quickly, removing the verified check marks from some accounts and suspending others from the report. With the Twitter check mark going from a simple verification pre-Musk, to a paid service that could entail verified users to profit sharing initiatives, boosted posts, and other features, Twitter could have potentially helped terrorist groups raise funds and spread propaganda, though the company denies this. Twitter claims they didn’t provide these services, but provided no proof of this, and quickly pulled the verification status from the named accounts. If Twitter made no mistakes, why did it act so quickly to remove the verified status from those accounts?
Report Details (Formerly) Verified Sanctioned Accounts
“X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, is providing premium, paid services to accounts for two leaders of a US-designated terrorist group and several other organizations sanctioned by the US government.”
– From the Tech Transparency Project report
The Tech Transparency Project (TTP) claims they found 28 accounts belonging to groups or individuals sanctioned by the U.S. government benefiting from Twitter verification. This means they either paid for them or received verification from Twitter as a gift. Either way could be a violation of U.S. sanctions. Twitter claims they didn’t have the benefits of a verified account, but simply having a check mark is a benefit that legitimizes the account. Any verification is a boon. Who are these accounts? They’re accounts linked primarily to the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hezbollah, as well as Iranian and Russian state media, a Russian bank, Iran-backed militants, and Houthi rebels. If Twitter sold subscriptions to these groups, or otherwise gave them benefits, they could run afoul U.S. law.
“The fact that X requires users to pay a monthly or annual fee for premium service suggests that X is engaging in financial transactions with these accounts, a potential violation of U.S. sanctions.”
– From the Tech Transparency Project report
Twitter removed the check marks from the accounts listed, and suspended others. Some were within Twitter’s expensive $1,000/month “premium” business tier. Others featured ads under their tweets, which could signal they were eligible for revenue sharing. One example, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, had over 93,000 followers, and was supposedly verified via Twitter’s “ID verified” system. This requires a photo of a valid state-issued ID as well as a selfie.
“Several of the accounts listed in the Tech Transparency Report are not directly named on sanction lists, while some others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions.”
– Twitter’s response to the report
With special permission from the government, a company can interact with sanctioned organizations. Twitter’s rules state they won’t interact with groups that are “not permitted to have dealings under US and other applicable economic sanctions and trade compliance law.” It is technically possible that Twitter has done their due diligence and ensured they could feature these accounts on their site with verified check marks. It seems strange, however, that they’d remove the check marks if they had permission to grant them to these individuals and groups.
Not Musk’s First Interaction with Extremism
Elon Musk took over Twitter in what he claimed was a pursuit of “free speech.” But the man seems to only have a first-grader’s grasp on the definition of the word. Yes, a governing entity—let’s pretend that’s Twitter for the sake of buying into this ridiculous argument—can prevent someone from saying certain things. However, when it comes to preventing violence, this fosters free speech. Think about it. A man walks into a grocery store and shouts “I’ll kill the first person to say anything!” Can you really speak? When you have people on Twitter who harass certain groups because they’re Jewish, or they’re speaking out about racism, sexism, or transphobia, then those people have been silenced. Far more people silenced because of the threatening actions of a few. That’s not free speech.
But Musk hasn’t had an interest in free speech. Not actual free speech, where everyone feels safe to talk, but not any version of free speech. He has banned people seemingly only for offending him. He was fine putting other people in danger of harassment, both on the platform and in the real world, with the threat of doxxing and swatting being very real for some marginalized groups. However, Musk seemingly just couldn’t take criticism when it was levied at him. Perhaps that’s why he sided with those who did show him praise.
The far right.
That could be why he came to agree with a tweet explaining why they thought “Hitler was right.” It’s how he came to support transphobic users who spread the personal information on people, possibly being the instigation of targeted threats. Musk has directly interacted with people who have been at the focal point of investigations into bomb threats at children’s hospitals and schools. He has welcomed and reportedly worked with people who reveal people’s names and school districts or workplaces, who use misinformation to rile up a base of hate, and then act surprised when that base acts on their hate. Experts on extremism call this “stochastic terrorism,” basically inspiring acts of terrorism without ever directly calling for them.
Musk has had his fair share of dealings with accused stochastic terrorists. I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised his company cut back on moderation so much it allegedly gave verified status to sanctioned terrorist groups too.
Twitter may or may not have engaged in breaking the law. If they had permission from the government, which they have not claimed, then these actions could have been legal. Otherwise, there’s a chance that Twitter engaged in breaking U.S. sanctions. That could spell trouble for the already struggling platform.
Sources and Further Reading:
- Karissa Bell, Engadget
- Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica
- David Ingram, NBC News
- Conor Murray, Forbes
- Adi Robertson, The Verge
- Tech Transparency Project
- Christopher Wiggins, Advocate, [2]