Proponents of an open internet argue that platforms like X play a vital role in protecting free expression by resisting government-mandated censorship. From this viewpoint, the pressure placed on X by the royal commission represents an overreach that threatens the fundamental nature of the digital public square. Supporters contend that social media companies should not be forced to act as arbiters of truth or morality, as this inevitably leads to the suppression of controversial but legal speech.
Those who back this approach emphasize that the responsibility for content moderation should not rest solely on private corporations. They argue that when governments demand the removal of content, they create a slippery slope where political or social discourse can be easily silenced. By maintaining a policy of minimal intervention, X preserves a space where users can engage in unfiltered debate, which is essential for a healthy democracy, even when that content is offensive to some.
Furthermore, advocates for this perspective point out that X’s refusal to engage with the inquiry may be a strategic decision to avoid legitimizing what they perceive as regulatory overreach. They argue that the platform’s business model, which relies on high user engagement, is inherently at odds with the restrictive frameworks favored by traditional institutions. For these supporters, the focus should remain on protecting the right to speak freely, rather than penalizing a company for refusing to comply with state-led efforts to curate the online experience.