A fundraising Zoom call called “White Dudes for Harris” reportedly gathered $4 million in donations for Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. Following the call, the @dudes4Harris account on X was briefly suspended.
Was this considered election interference?
In reality, the answer is of course not.
Even if X CEO Elon Musk did order the account’s suspension due to its politics, there would be no illegal activity involved. X is a private platform and is not obligated to be politically neutral. While it may not be a good business move to suppress pro-Harris content, it is not against the law. Musk and X have no obligation to give equal representation to different political views or candidates.
Interested in sex, technology, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture? Subscribe to Sex & Tech from Reason and Elizabeth Nolan Brown.
There is no evidence that X intentionally tried to hinder Harris organizers. The dudes4Harris account, which is not directly affiliated with the Harris campaign, was suspended after holding its Zoom call and was reinstated the next day. This would not be an effective strategy if the goal was to halt its influence or fundraising. There are valid reasons why X may have suspended the account.
“Techdirt” Editor in Chief Mike Masnick, who is critical of X policies and Musk, explained, “If an account suddenly gains a large following without a clear official connection to the campaign and encourages donations, it could trigger internal review processes leading to suspension. This is standard procedure.”
In a partisan context, some view the account’s suspension as an attempt by Musk to influence the 2024 election.
Political consultant Dante Atkins on X claimed, “Musk, a Trump supporter deeply entrenched in white identity grievance, shut down an account that raised over $4 million for Kamala Harris. This is election interference.”
Various similar sentiments are circulating on X, accusing the platform of plotting against certain accounts and individuals. Some even suggest that Musk is engaging in election interference by sharing misinformation or promoting pro-Trump content.
This situation echoes past instances where different political groups perceived social media platform actions as attempts to sway elections. The narrative often depends on one’s political affiliation.
Musk himself questioned if Google’s search results manipulation was “election interference?” However, many clarified that the search results continued to include Trump. It may have been a temporary glitch or related to Musk’s previous searches.
Even if Google purposely altered search auto-population, it wouldn’t be considered election interference but rather a questionable business decision. The theory behind such actions seems far-fetched.
Let’s stop indulging in conspiracy theories and baseless claims. If content is not easily accessible on social media, it’s likely due to technical issues, not a billionaire’s political agenda.
It’s essential to separate fact from fiction and avoid falling prey to unfounded accusations.
Both sides have mastered the art of weaponizing claims of election interference to attract attention, incite anger, and gain influence.
It’s important to remember that actual election crimes involve activities such as illegally funneling donations, obstructing people from voting, making threats to manipulate votes, providing false information on voter registration forms, casting multiple votes, or abusing power as an elected official for partisan gain. Merely attempting to sway public opinion for or against candidates, even if done by influential individuals or based on misinformation, does not constitute election interference.
Furthermore, effectively moderating content is an extremely challenging task. Tech companies stand to lose more than they gain from engaging in biased moderation practices.
Therefore, before accusing entities like X, Google, Meta, or other online platforms of election interference, it’s crucial to pause, gather yourself, and resist being swept up in a moral panic. Refrain from becoming a pawn in this narrative.
For more updates on Sex & Tech News:
– The Kids Online Safety Act was recently approved by the Senate, with only three senators voting against it.
– A federal court dismissed a case related to the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act against user-generated porn websites.
– An expansive interpretation of “child sex trafficking” is prompting calls for dating platforms to verify users’ identities.
– The AI search wars have commenced.
Check out today’s image depicting the complexities of election interference in Cincinnati, 2023.
Source link
