Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Elon Musk’s bid to protect free speech threatens another First Amendment right

Opinion

Elon Musk, First Amendment
STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Kohli is the advocacy associate at Interfaith Alliance, a national organization dedicated to protecting the integrity of both religion and democracy in the United States.

For better or for worse, I grew up with social media. I remember jumping on Google+ after school and continuing conversations with friends. I would use Facebook groups to organize class gifts for favorite teachers. Snapchat was for sending funny pictures and maintaining streaks as a way to qualify friendships. Of course, social media platforms are so much more than places to make silly posts for your friends. Platforms are part of a complicated information ecosystem, in which some parts thrive as healthy forums, and other parts spread lies and misinformation, allowing hate and harassment to thrive on and off line.

I also grew up with Indian-American, immigrant parents. My grandparents tell me the beauty of this country is that people of so many backgrounds and cultures can come here to coexist. But social media, for all its strengths and potential, gives an outsized voice to people who want to spread hate and sow division. When I scroll through the depths of Twitter or accidentally click on a YouTube video that sends my recommendations down a rabbit hole of extremism, it’s clear to me that each of us is constantly in danger of being pushed into echo chambers of hate.

Elon Musk’s plans for Twitter threaten the very coexistence my grandparents celebrated. Musk’s fumbling leadership of the influential social media platform risks the democratic promise of our country. If hate is allowed to run rampant and millions of users feel unsafe, we are failing to live up to that promise.


Musk has positioned himself as a champion of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This framing could not be further from the truth. Instead, he has allowed extremists and people with hateful ideologies to expand their reach on Twitter. Musk fired staff in charge of dealing with hateful content on the platform, leaving the company too short-staffed to handle the increase in harmful posts. In the 12-hour period after Musk’s ownership of Twitter was finalized, the use of derogatory language toward Black people increased almost 500 percent.

While concerns about Musk’s damaging impact on free speech have been well-documented, the risks to another fundamental right have been overlooked: freedom of religion, which recognizes the right for people of all faiths or none to practice what they believe. Social media is so intertwined with our lives offline that threats to religious freedom are no longer confined to the physical world. Every day that hate is allowed to run rampant and target communities online, the freedom to believe as we choose erodes.

In recent years, harmful content on social media has manifested in physical acts of violence targeting vulnerable communities. A 2021 report from the Anti-Defamation League exposed the harmful effects of online hate on different communities, from an increase in violence against Asian Americans, to antisemitic harassment directed at Jewish members of Congress, to the quadrupling of hateful Facebook posts against African Americans after the murder of George Floyd.

There are too many examples of real-world violence committed by young social media users who encountered increasingly extremist content online. The perpetrator of the devastating attack at a supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y., streamed the massacre on Twitch. The shooter wrote a manifesto on Google Docs filled with white supremacist ideology, stating that he was radicalized on 4chan in 2020. The Twitch livestream was taken down in just two minutes, but the video remained on Facebook for over 10 hours, allowing 46,000 people to share it. His actions, and the failure of platforms to identify and take down content like this immediately, created further extremist material for other users to view.

For better or for worse, social media is the most accessible way for people to connect online. Our government has an obligation to protect people of all backgrounds and identities. As backlash against content moderation comes to a head on Twitter, there’s no telling how other platforms might adjust their policies in the future. The national conversation around what’s happening with Twitter is laser-focused on the whims of a CEO who doesn’t seem to understand what he wants. All the while, real people and communities are being hurt.

While people like Musk play games with the ever-growing universe we’ve created online, our government must devote real time and resources to taming the giant that is the tech industry. Without regulation, and while people from different faiths, backgrounds and identities are harassed on and off social media, this country fails to be a safe haven for the people who need it most. Big Tech and its social media platforms are only getting started – we must ensure that this industry’s progress does not come at the cost of our most sacred freedoms.

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less