on what was an important overland trade route. ♪ >> cover a quick check of the headlines you're on al jazeera, moscow has agreed in principle to allow the evacuations of civilians. in the besieged ukrainian city. the u.n. secretary met vladimir putin in moscow. they described the situation is difficult and tragic, that also said that they had been lit misled about what is happening there. >> there are no military actions being conducted in the steel

factory, we heard from the ukrainian government that there are civilians inside the compound. ukrainian military personnel are obliged to let them go. the simple thing with regards to evacuating those people, mr. secretary-general you have been deceived and misled. over where thousand people -- 100,000 people have left, some going to brush. in some going ukraine. . >> more than 40 countries have agreed to meet monthly to discuss arming ukraine. the first meeting was held on tuesday. in a change in policy berlin says it will now provide kyiv with heavy weapons. at least three people having killed in russian airstrikes in the city of kharkiv. another person was killed in a rocket attack, the southeastern city and ukrainian control. russia says it will turn off the

gas to poland and bulgaria wednesday because the refused to pay for it in rubles. is the first time since he started the war that russia has made -- last month putin had warned unfriendly foreign buyers to pay in rubles instead of dollars and euros. they said they had made alternative arrangements. poland said they are gas storage facilities were 76% all. the u.s. secondary estate has warned iran could be in position to develop a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks. antony blinken says the return to the 2015 nuclear deal is the best way to reduce any threat. it also says terror and has accelerated their nuclear program in recent years. those the headlines, it continues here on al jazeera after inside story. ♪

laura: elon musk is set to take control of twitter whether biggest tech acquisitions of all time. what would it mean for the future of the tech platform and the freedom of speech? this is inside story. hello there and welcome to the program. i am laura. free speech is the bedrock of a punching democracy and twitter is its digital townsquare. these are the words of the world's richest man and now the owner of that townsquare. elon musk sealed the deal for

$44 billion and the board unanimously agreed to sell it to the man promoting free speech and transparency. the future of the company azalea clear -- of the company is not yet clear. twitter has been losing value over the years and ask is notorious for trying to silence his critics. it sparked this reaction from the white house. >> what i can tell you as a general matter: no matter who owns or runs twitter, the president has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms, what they ha- the power they have over our everyday lives: has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause. he has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to section 230, enacting antitrust reforms, requiring more transparency, and more. and he's encouraged that there's bipartisan interest in congress. in terms of what hypothetical policies might happen, i'm just not going to speak to that. laura: after the purchase elon

musk tweeted yes. he said, i also want to make twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spambots, and authenticating all humans. twitter has tremendous potential, he said, i look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it. the move has sparked plenty of reaction both good and bad. here is what some people in new york had to say. >> i do not think would be good if he has all the control. just because he has a lot of money doesn't mean he deserves all the power. >> i think he'll turn it for the better. >> how so? >> uh, giving people more freedom of speech. maybe bringing my man trump back to twitter. >> i don't think that that one person should have full control of the platform. i think the people should have their own voice and be able to share how they feel. >> he wants to buy it or whatever and make it a private company, but it's like, you already got so much money you already got so much stuff. why are you messing with twitter, bro?

like i'm on twitter all the time, but it's like why are you over here buying twitter like stunting on this you know? laura: even if you do not have a twitter account it is unlikely that you not heard of it has been around for 16 years, a platform in the u.s. are microblogging and social platform services. it is estimated to have for 36 million registered users that interact using short messages using tweets. celebrities, organizations, governments use twitter to reach millions of people. elon musk is a an avid tweeter with an audience of more than 80 million followers themselves. twitters admiral -- annual revenue was a relatively small amount compared to other giants like facebook. ♪ laura: let's bring in our guest now. joining us from london we have

quinn mckew, executive director at article 19. from los angeles we have ramesh srinivasan, professor of information studies at the university of california, los angeles . and also from london charles arthur, journalist specialising in technology and social media. a very warm welcome to all of you. quinn, let's start with you. why has twitter accepted elon musk's offer in just a few days ago the board unanimously agreed not to let the takeover go through? quinn: i think maybe some people who are more inclined on the business side can speak to that relatively well. it is clear that the offer that was ultimately made exceeded the share price of twitter such that it was a very attractive bit. even after twitter had put in a poison pill notoriously just last week. laura: do you agree it was just an offer that was too good to refuse in the end?

charles: it was interesting that twitter was due to produce its first-quarter results this tuesday, some feel that with the general slowdown with the world economy things were not looking so good and this was the best offer on the table. it was easy for them to refuse the offer initially because musk did not have the financing. they were hoping maybe someone would turn up with more money. the $55 that musk is offering is less than the share prices last year. it is more than a has been. it is a sort of thing where it is the best offer around. and it did not see things improving. it is pretty obvious in that respect while they took it. laura: remeasured a lot of money for business that is being described as woefully unprofitable. why does elon musk want it? ramesh: first of all, elon musk

loves to get into little battles and turf wars and little arm wrestling matches on twitter. he enjoys being active on twitter. i also think it fits within his ideological portfolio, if you will. we see him owning multiple other types of companies and he has always been this person who likes to be a low bit outlandish. he claims for free speech, now he owns a social media wing to his media conglomerate empire. for him it is a major achievement. twitter, despite not necessarily being profitable remains extremely influential especially on media itself. reporters all around the world often source and engage with the stories by twitter. laura: given that twitter is so influential in society is it right that such a powerful tool should be in the hands of just one man? >> i think it is extremely problematic, for many different

reasons. twitter was already encountering huge issues with albert -- algorithmically powered disinformation. it intended to be hateful, conspiratorial, grabbing people's attention. that is not the way any sort of media network should function. there should be some baseline of commonality of what people see. it is problematic even more so because musk himself has boasted, white light -- quite widely that he is a free speech absolutist. that means in any given society, when we talk about free speech, we should have lots of different kinds of speech be part of the platform. what we have found again and again on twitter and musk is highly unlikely to do a thing about it is that hateful speech or speech that is intended to grab your attention, is the content that will go viral again and again. musk, who is always against

regulation of almost any kind and calls himself a free speech absolutist, as a private wealthiest person in the world, this recipe is a concoction for even greater problems with big tech's takeover of all of our lives around the world. i want to do everything we can to rain this and and bouncy playing fields even more. laura: just a small side, why is hate speech so popular on people's newsfeeds? ramesh: that is a great question. what is happening with all technology platforms is data being constantly gathered about hundreds of millions of people. all around the world. data around what we look at, how long we look at it, what we tweet, what we comment on, etc., this is all fine grain behavioral data, based on the data being captured about us to

-- all the time without us being aware of it, content is suggested based on prediction based on correlation. prediction what will capture our attention. the business model of the technology platform is to keep us all locked in there all the time. one thing that gets all of our attention to medical we are, is crazy -- no matter who we are is crazy outrageous content. musk has given no signals that that is something he ultimately cares about, an instrument of democracy, some baseline of common understanding, then our problems continue. laura: how much cannot be countered by making the algorithms open sourced and exposing some people have more control over what they see? that is also something musk says he wants to do. quinn: i think we need to be clear we are talking about when we talk about how good the -- talk about algorithmic transparency.

there is the transparency about what the algorithm is itself. there is also transparency and how it actually operates. having the code out there does not necessarily tell you about the tweets and various things that are going on. one way of making companies more accessible is making more of the code out there for people to look at, evaluate. as he was saying, the fundamental problem is the attention economy. that is what drives the business model of this company and much more successful companies than twitter if you look at facebook and youtube. the fundamental business model centralizers control of what we interact with in a few small powerful -- powerful companies hands. laura: is what he is want to do with twitter realistic? he has given no details and how he has proposing to reduce censorship.

we do not even know if he can expose this algorithm. how would that work? is this something you will see happen? ramesh: what he has said has been contradictory. he has talked about eating rid of bots -- talked about getting rid of bots and being a free speech absolutist. similarly, we will out terrorist videos? obviously not. your free-speech absolutism has a line. the question is where does he draw the line? that is a complicated part, is very easy to talk about these things as companies, but when you run a company is a given question. the thing about the algorithm is interesting. if you work to remove the algorithm that amplifies outrage. the thing that we pay attention to, you have a stripped back

twitter, one that is much more about what people are saying, not things being thrust at you to gain your interest because that is what gets advertising in front of you. if twitter does not necessarily have to survive on advertising, then it might be able to take on a different sort of character. he has given no clues about that. he is made noises about the inscription. if he has changed it that way would have a big impact focusing on disinformation and on the attention economy. laura: do you think people will want to use it? as human beings we are drawn towards this dramatic speech. if it is not they, does not exist, what is the point in using it? we want to be entertained, do we? charles: personally i never see any twitter ads and i do not get the health rhythmic -- algorithmic twitter feed is a is a third-party app. isla get the chronological timeline and no ads. in that sense i get the twitter

was used to be and what it could possibly be. this is totally possible and i use all the time. i am a journalist and as he said come a journalist are drawn to it because as we find news quickly and sources. laura: he has said he would allow the laws of each individual country to govern the free-speech or determine what free-speech is allowed. how does that work when twitter is a global entity and there are so many different countries assuming different laws? quinn: i think you have zeroed in on something, a fundamental problem to the idea of really enforcing what we consider the global, international norms on freedom of expression. which is, at present time, according to our own research. freedom of expression globally is at its lowest level in 20 years. this is increasingly driven by laws lasted -- passed at the

national level that increasingly restrict what global media companies are allowed to do. or gives governments huge control over the kind of content. whether it is through data localization laws requiring companies to hold data on all the users in a country where things like landing laws. requiring companies to have local offices in countries which then gives governments a form of pressure as influence over what is being done because staff to be held hostage. the global picture becomes much more complex we take into account the different laws and the fact that democracy is at its lowest in 20 to 30 years. it is incredibly complex of fine places with a view of freedom of expression is supportive as you may think it is. laura: we heard from the white house that biden was concerned about the concentration of power

and social media companies they would not comment specifically about this case. what can governments do about? how can they police this sort of take over even if they wanted to? ramesh: right, where i think we are headed to very problematically will this be this false choice between a free speech absolutist, a private hyper wealthy guy that says let the wildfires go and the backlash will be a censorship model by a lot of restrictive and authoritative governments by states and will end up being a problematic flashpoint. the real issue should be governing these platforms, not solely in their private acuity of profits and evaluation interest, but in a democratic interest. here are the eyes states, i have several colleagues connected to the administration as well as people i work with in congress

and there is widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo. we have seen very little in terms of actual action taken by the federal trade commission, the federal communications commission or on a congressional level despite the widespread discontent. i think the reason why, the biggest lobbyists in democratic initiations and to some extent it republican administrations, despite high profile flashpoints of little controversies are the big tech companies. we should no longer think of big technology companies as simply social media or simply technology companies. they the wealthiest of both -- most powerful copies the history of the world. when the military budget gets expanded, many of those contracts go to technology companies. they have taken over every aspect of our lives by monetizing our attention, grabbing our data, and taking our anxieties and emotions as their raw materials for a new

expansive immersive form of digital capitalism. we need to think about what people need in their actual interest. what a real free-speech looks like in balance with a free media. we need to think about those issues of people can be uplifted along with those companies as well. laura: how concerning deer find of the all of that power that he talked about -- how concerning do you find that the all that power that he talked about is now in the hands of one man? charles: social media in the form of facebook is in effect in the hands of mark zuckerberg. google is effectively held by him and larry page. they have all the voting stocks. we have an incredible concentration of power. congress, they are american companies, struggles to find ways to regulate the companies because it is not quite sure it once -- what he wants to do or

not do. it does not know how to do that without tripping over the first amendment that stops the u.s. government from impeding what companies can say and what citizens can say. there is possibly more moving on that in europe because of that digital services act which may have some sort of leverage over these companies, but that remains to be seen. and will start to become naked -- become a bit clearer in the coming years. if the companies withdraw those services, we will not work in france, germany, do the governments cave-in because the citizens demand the services or do other services spring up? laura: let's not forget, of course, that governments use these sources as well. trump was usually successful on the back of his tweets, we work reporting them all the time at 3m and al jazeera.

what chance do you think trump might get his account back? quinn: considering elon musk himself has talked about restoring the account is a very significant likelihood. while i may be living in britain right now i do remember the very problematic days, as you yourself said reporting constantly the tweets coming from donald trump. in the very moment when it is being found that a significant insurrection plan, an attempt to overthrow the u.s. election orchestrated by donald trump, think we need to take seriously there is a real risk politically and for democracy united states and not be viewed as free-speech land. one of the powers of freedom of expression is leveling between the powerful and powerless. one of the things that we are concerned with, because of the elon musk experiences is he is more concerned about ensuring those that are already powerful do not find their voices constrained.

when attention should be placed on those not in position of power and make sure they are not driven off platforms where they have the same kind of access as those who are billionaires have. laura: if people do want to leave twitter they can. do you think we will see a lot of people leaving the platform? quinn: it is very difficult to say. one of the things i think we need to take into account, globally, twitter is actually not one of the largest tech companies, and has an audience of 430 million as you said. taking into account apps that are strictly messenger apps like whatsapp, has 2 -- 2 billion users, telegram has 550 million. we put a lot of emphasis on twitter because it is important for the media and therefore content on twitter gets amplified and crosses over to the mainstream a lot more.

never leave the potential for innovation to the side. i think charles mentioned that many of these platforms are constrained, other services will jump up to take their place. on the problematic side reversing this to happen in china with a large western social media companies are effectively banned or outright banned. there is a very vibrant, of -- albeit very censored social media environment there. i do think that if twitter does disappear or becomes a less hospitable place for people to be, that there will be alternatives that arise. laura: can muska walk this tight rope of -- can muska walk this type rope of courting new leaders? charles: he has had successes with building an electric vehicle company and tesla,

building usable space rockets with spacex. this is a different. game it is dealing with humans and the very different ways humans behave. it can be done, but we have not mentioned the financials of this yet. it is tricky, he needs a billion dollars a year to repay the interest on those debts. twitter is never come close to generating that come money -- kind of money. he will have to find some kind of is this model. everyone agrees it has value but they have not seen how to unlock it. advertising is that the way to do it, if he makes it a commune occasion's backbone for the world you can see that there is -- communications backbone for the world that there is an enormous value. people with celebrity followings, why would they not be paying a certain amount of money to make their voices heard? that is a way forward so you can effectively paid -- pay for your free-speech. it may sound like a

contradiction but i'm sure he would be happy for that. laura: he says he wants to unlock the twitter's potential, what is that? ramesh: the potential is for it to be the end disposable and indispensable tool for us all to communicate with one another. much like facebook/meta's portfolio has taken that over. his goal is to unlock twitter to be the absolute tool we use to connect with one another and learn about the wider world. the problem is, the wider world being presented to us is not a open public. any public sphere there will be some hateful voices and some people there saying things that are just not true. the problem is, on twitter much like on facebook, it dominates the global south and global marketplace on a lot of levels. especially when you include instagramming whatsapp and never folio. the problem is -- in their portfolio.

the problem is the content is designed to grab our eyeballs. they will have to export different kinds of business models that are more rooted in a certain kind of humanity. in all of our voices. i do want to make the point that despite the potential challenges of making the ones to pay out this debt, muska is the wealthiest person in the history of the world. he has made a huge amount of wealth during the pandemic as have all of the tech billionaires approaching trillionaire's, they have doubled their wealth in many cases. reinstating the former president onto twitter will be an incredibly effective distress -- success in supporting his interest to grow and build up the platform and have a boom even more. the former president was a central node on twitter itself. he was a central node because of his messaging of often outrageous and false content that went viral all the time. laura: some interesting times ahead we will have to stay on twitter to see what happens.

many thanks to all for joining us today. and thank you for watching. you can see the program again anytime visiting al jazeera.com and for further discussion go to our facebook page facebook.com/ a.j. inside story and yes we are on twitter our handlers @ajins idestory. goodbye for now. o7ñ;ñ;?k

- i' probablembalmedclose te my wholcareer if i am grieng. - everody wantto do their n. - , not sced of ha work. just, it's aew thing -- - yeah, 's a neway ana new time. - [announcer]: major funding for reel south was provided by: etv endowment, the national endowment for the arts, center for asian-american media,