"The bird is freed", but what does the regime change at Twitter really mean?
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.” Elon Musk now officially owns Twitter and has set about saving free speech and the digital town square, the question is how, and perhaps more importantly if Musk is really the man we want to entrust such a duty to. In fact, I would argue that if Musk was serious about Twitter being the digital public square he would transition it from a profit seeking business to a genuinely public institution seeking better discourse rather than profit, and making sure the power over Twitter is distributed. There are many who see Musk as a saviour figure for Twitter as Musk has repeatedly stated that freedom of speech is an important issue to him, but I think that while there are issues stemming from Musk specifically owning Twitter and Twitter being owned by an individual more broadly.
Freedom of speech is important, and certainly a value which should be strived for but the discussion around the issue in the context of Musk taking over Twitter is very warped. There are reports of usage of racial slurs on Twitter increasing by 500% after the deal went through. Irrespective of what Musk’s intentions are or of his interpretation of what freedom of speech means there is clearly a number of bigotted Twitter users who perceive Musk to be an ally of theirs. I won’t speculate on Musk’s personal beliefs, but I do think the fact that so many think that Musk talking about freedom of speech means tolerating racism and misogyny is a worrying sign, and there are more worrying signs in the wake of the acquisition like Musk’s lax attitude towards Twitter, and his leadership style.
One of the themes in the reporting of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is how he’s making light of the responsibility he bought for himself. Showing up to the Twitter offices carrying a sink saying “let that sink in”, and calling himself “chief twit” and “Twitter complaint hotline operator” instead of CEO are admittedly somewhat funny bits but it also seems like an awfully carefree attitude to having just assumed the burden of being responsible for the “digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated”. Obviously, I’m being dramatic, having a sense of humour is no doubt a good quality and making jokes is not necessarily a sign of not taking something seriously. But placed in the context of Musk not giving up either of his two full time CEO responsibilities for other companies (Tesla and SpaceX) you begin wondering if Musk is serious about Twitter. Musk has called himself a “first amendment absolutist”, referring to the section of the American constitution which establishes the right to freedom of speech, so you’d think that if Musk was serious he would dedicate more time to the platform where matters vital to the future of humanity are being debated.
Furthermore, another thing a lot of reporting on the Musk Twitter takeover note is that Musk has gotten rid of practically the entire leadership cadre of Twitter to be replaced by Musk and his allies. There are also reports from The Guardian that Musk has a very authoritarian leadership style, citing an internal email from Tesla where Musk reportedly writes “If an email is sent from me with explicit directions, there are only three actions allowed by managers. 1) Email me back to explain why what I said was incorrect. Sometimes, I’m just plain wrong! 2) Request further clarification if what I said was ambiguous. 3) Execute the directions. If none of the above are done, that manager will be asked to resign immediately”. As soon as Musk took power he started letting people go, according to the Financial Times Musk plans to halve Twitter's workforce, in addition to letting the management go. If you sincerely believe that Twitter is the digital public square and that free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, doesn’t it logically follow that allowing a single individual sweeping power and control over said digital public square is a threat to both the platform and the rights to the free speech of individuals granted by the first amendment?
In a blog post from July I argued that there is a real risk to centralising power over a critical public institution in the form of a social media platform in the hands of a single individual as the views of said individual could be favoured over others’ views through the platform’s mechanics. Musk’s action in the week following him taking control over Twitter indicates to me that I was onto a real issue. As I mentioned in that previous post I’m not a fan of Twitter as a platform and I personally don’t share Musk’s view that Twitter is the digital public square, but nonetheless the fact that an ostensibly public square is privately owned and controlled by a single incredibly mercurial individual would in my eyes substantially decrease the legitimacy of Twitter as a completely neutral platform merely hosting important debates. Setting up a “content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints” is rendered practically useless when there is an individual with the power (and it seems inclination) to fire any Twitter employee on the spot. Quoting the Guardian article again: “Over the summer, employees at one of his other companies had enough. ‘SpaceX must swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand,’ they wrote, in a letter to senior executives that called Musk a ‘distraction and embarrassment’. Instead, the letter-writers were fired.” Musk clearly didn’t respect those SpaceX employees’ right to express themselves freely when that expression framed the man himself in a negative light. Can we really trust a man like that to be the benevolent dictator for the digital public square?
To be very clear, I dislike the way Musk portrays himself online and in interviews and I don’t think he takes his responsibilities seriously enough, but my argument here would be just as valid if it were any other single individual taking over Twitter. Democracy is built on a distribution of power, and that’s in my view the appropriate model for handling vital public institutions. My gripe is less that a person I don’t like nor trust has taken over Twitter; rather it’s the fact that the ostensible digital public square can be owned by a single person in the first place.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about Joe Biden and his policies here or the rest of my writings here. It would mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by greenwish_ from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments