What the Skeptics and Naysayers Miss about Elon Musk’s Twitter Purchase

A Guest Column by Ryan Bernier

After a long, winding, unpredictable road and months of anticipation, the richest man in the world has finally successfully purchased Twitter. To those who have followed the news on this process, it may seem like every step in the journey brought controversy, which has been amplified by opportunistic media outlets, pundits, and social media users.

Shortly after the purchase, the new owner, Elon Musk clarified his intentions:

“The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence. There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.”

As with most things in our politics today, the reaction to this news has been dramatic and polarized. 

The Voices of the Skeptics

Musk believes that for the betterment of humanity, Twitter should become a digital town square that champions free speech and diverse thought. Many influential digital media outlets doubt that Twitter can fulfill its new owner's vision and some even disagree that there is a problem in the first place. Wired Magazine, FiveThirtyEight, and The Guardian have all expressed their doubts about Mr. Musk’s vision coming to fruition, for a variety of reasons.

Here are a few arguments that they use to support their skepticism:

1. A public square cannot exist within a private company.

2. A more socially-conscious, stakeholder model would be superior.

3. A ‘free-speech, free-for-all’ would deter users and advertisers.

The validity of each of these arguments are upended by some glaring issues.

In the United States, private companies are not legally required to guarantee free speech for all. However, who is to say that a private company cannot willingly adopt a policy of First Amendment absolutism? A private company has every earthly right to create a public square that is designed in the image of the First Amendment. To accomplish this, two simple and basic criteria must be met.

First, people with diverse viewpoints must feel welcome. Second, the same allowances for free expression required by publicly funded institutions would need to upheld by the private organization, in this case Twitter.

This is precisely what Musk has advocated.

“By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.” Musk goes on. “Going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

Be skeptical if you want, but the First Amendment is quite popular with Americans and it is likely to be popular with Twitter users as well.

Revenue Sources and Straw Men

Regarding the theory that a revenue model dependent on advertisers will influence speech policy, there are a couple of important points. First, on numerous occasions, Musk has declared his intent to move Twitter toward a subscription-based service. This would lead to a steady stream of revenue, independent of advertising. It would also allow Twitter to focus exclusively on their free speech goals. Second, revenue models that depend on stakeholder capitalism and donors have their own problems.

Famous Author Stephen King who has become an outspoken, political pundit thanks largely to Twitter, is one person who is very upset at the prospect of paying for certain subscription services on Twitter. If it happens, according to him, he will leave the platform. “I’ll be gone like Enron.” He says. Does he mean it? Time will tell, because it looks like the subscription is coming, if Mr. Musk’s recent Tweets are any indication.

On the third point, by any reasonable measure, a "free-speech, free-for-all" is a straw man characterization of what Musk is actually advocating. Look no further than Elon’s message to advertisers hours after his purchase.

“...Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences.”

Unless Mr. Musk is being insincere, this was never in question. In fact, as the topic of Elon’s purchase of Twitter has dominated the news, many thought leaders have spoken about free speech as an incendiary force that leads to danger if it is never controlled. Referring to free speech absolutism on Twitter, or anywhere for that matter as the “wild west” as Kevin Roose of the New York Times and others have done is a curious characterization. Is setting speech guidelines on a public social media platform that would be in alignment with the First Amendment problematic in some way? If so, how?

This is fraudulent thinking. The political temperature has not been raised because of a lack of free speech restrictions. Instead, precisely the opposite is true. As social media companies have tipped the scales by restricting some speech under the guise of “preventing misinformation” and allowing others to say whatever they want, those who align ideologically with the censored voices have become angry.

Right Now, Twitter Stinks!

People love to focus on negativity. It is in our nature as humans. If you need evidence of this, just read the news any day, or log onto Twitter in its current form. To make matters worse, the method currently championed by news media outlets, politicians, and social media companies relies on captivating your attention at all costs, including by sacrificing our relationships and mental health. We should do our best to learn how to guard against these predations on our own accord, but a company like Twitter can also do its part to help the common good.

As someone who makes a habit of complaining about Twitter, on Twitter, I believe that nearly everyone who uses the platform would agree it is fair to refer to the experience as a “cesspool,” “anxiety-inducing,” “distracting,” and a “trash heap.” Similar adjectives may also apply, including more vulgar ones.

The rhetoric that dominates Twitter today does little more than to advance disturbing extremism, which not only leads to misinformed citizens, but it acts as a barrier for us to all to experience a more enriching life. Elon has pledged to fix this and we should rejoice at the mere possibility. You can only rebuke extremism and unfounded conspiracy theories by providing a rebuttal. Censorship only makes their appeal grow stronger. This should be obvious.

Hope has Arrived

As of this writing, Twitter has already implemented a new user-generated fact-checking model. Tweets now come with a “context check” that users can rate as either helpful or unhelpful, similar to how users can vote “like” or “dislike” Reddit comments. Users are also allowed to submit qualitative feedback, similar to Wikipedia. Twitter can use this information to display fact-checks that users can trust better than the ones that come from Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters or partisan fact-checking sources like Politifact.

The White House has already removed a false and misleading Tweet due to backlash. The Tweet bragged about the increases in the Social Security benefits that the Federal government is providing in the next tax year. Users rightly pointed out that the only reason this was necessary is because inflation is at 40-year highs. It is about time social media companies put the responsibility for the spread of quality information where it belongs, in the hands of its users, as Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act intended.

One Tweet by Elon Musk has already been context-checked by users. Check it out here.

If people come to believe that Twitter is more than a hyper-partisan echo chamber in which various political factions publicly discuss the radicalism of those with alternative political worldviews, where exactly is the downside? If that perception changes, new users will join precisely because their experience will be more positive. We should all be optimistic about the future of Twitter and grateful that the world’s richest man wants to spend a forth of his fortune just to improve our civil discourse.

So far, not only has Elon Musk demonstrated his commitment to advance the essential and noble cause of freedom of speech, to the tune of $44 billion dollars, he has also proven to be more sophisticated in his approach than many had thought. If recent events are any indication, then this story is far from over.

Thanks to Elon Musk, Twitter users and the world at large can embrace hope for at least a slightly better tomorrow.

+++++++++++++++

Ryan Bernier is a Career Services and Human Resources professional who maintains a career and personal empowerment hub called Deep Dive Careers. He also maintains a newsletter known as “Ryan’s Weekly Wave,” which shares news-related topics on workplace trends along with insightful articles and other items related to his intellectual journey. Ryan is a strong proponent of free-expression and a believer in its power to unleash human potential.