One of the world’s most influential social media platforms will soon be under the private ownership of the world’s richest person. What could possibly go wrong? Elon Musk’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter has prompted speculation about how the mercurial electric car mogul might change things. Republicans are giddy about the prospect that Musk might restore “free speech” to the platform — which, of course is conservative code for allowing right-wing disinformation to flourish.
Speaking of disinformation, one of the most discussed issues out there is whether Musk will reopen Twitter to former President Donald Trump, who was rightly banned for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. (Trump’s declaration that he has no interest in returning to Twitter isn’t believable, given his past obsession with the site.) But Musk and everyone else should remember the broader stakes of shaking up a platform that, for better or worse, has no real social media equal in its power to immediately and dramatically impact America’s political conversation.
Twitter has more than 350 million users worldwide, more than 70 million of those in the U.S., which makes it far smaller than platforms like Facebook or Instagram. But Twitter has exerted outsize influence on American political debate, largely because its bumper-sticker-like brevity makes it the perfect soapbox for politicians and celebrities. Unfortunately, the 280-character limit also encourages sloganeering and insults rather than reasoned discourse. That’s good for partisanship and zealotry, but not so much for civility and factual information.
Whether Musk would make that situation better or worse is, like so much of the mega-billionaire’s persona, unclear. Musk’s politics have always been difficult to pin down — he donates (not much) to both parties and voices opinions that are all over the political map. But his vow to dramatically scale back content moderation falls very much in line with the political right today. Musk has said that, short of outright illegal speech like death threats, he’d be inclined to “let the speech exist.”
That sounds nice, but does it include speech that doesn’t quite rise to criminality but is clearly harassment? How about spreading deliberate medical disinformation during a deadly pandemic? Or inciting an attack on democracy with disproven election fraud lies?
Today’s conservative bromides to “free speech” are cynically situational anyway (as Florida Republicans just demonstrated by bringing the heavy hand of government down on Disney for criticizing their “don’t say gay” law). Contrary to some assertions, private companies aren’t legally obligated to host toxic lies. Twitter’s content moderation has never been perfect, but it’s hard to imagine that abandoning the effort altogether could do anything but make its too-often-swampy environment swampier.
More pedestrian but useful changes, like adding editing capability for users and better bot control, could be good for everyone. Most important is that Musk understands he has taken on a responsibility to society by buying this unparalleled megaphone.
———
