This is an abbreviated and lightly edited reposting of two articles I wrote in 2022 about Elon Musk and Twitter (now “X”). They warrant reposting because the questions raised almost three years ago are even more relevant than they were then. The articles posed some questions that — fortunately or unfortunately — seem to have been answered. But they also raise lots more.
As his Tweets have already revealed, he wants something else. He wants influence, control and power over the expression, interpretation and sharing of ideas, apparently regardless of their accuracy, value or the risks they might pose. Musk appears to want a piece of the infrastructure of the global conversation.
Why, Really?
A Tweet (in 2022) by Musk:
“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 … I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”
Not much about content: what are you going to do when someone with a lot of followers incites a riot?
Or what about this Tweet?
“I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”
Well said, I guess, but what happens when these critics spew unconscionable lies about you and your companies, lies that affect the value of the companies and distract you from running the companies in which lots of people have parked their pensions?
Media Concentration, Intent & Boredom
There are at least three disturbing aspects about Musk’s latest venture. The first is the power and control that wealth provides. Who owns the Washington Post? Who controls Bloomberg? News Corp? Who controls Facebook? Now, who controls Twitter? In 2018, Forbes published an article with the chilling title, “These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies.” Yahoo published a more recent list – “15 Richest Media Owners in the World.” I don’t know about you, but I’m nervous about the concentration of so many media platforms in the hands of so few. (Jeff Bezos’ decision to not endorse a candidate in 2024 is a case in point.)
The 2nd is what Musk will do with Twitter. The “free speech” umbrella – like all such umbrellas – sets up a false debate where no one wants to take a counter position. But like the now ancient example of why no one can yell fire in a movie theater, where do you draw the line? Musk’s purchase of Twitter now gives him control over where the lines get drawn. OK — or scary?
The 3rd aspect that concerns me is what appears to be “billionaire boredom.” Musk has an incredible technology platform spread across at least four companies. (He also has a lot of money.) He has a lot to do to solve some really complex, incredibly important human problems (and deliver for his shareholders). Why not stay in this swim lane where he sets records? I’m nervous about where boredom might lead. Is the (earthly) transportation industry next? Food? Energy? Without serious regulatory controls, which are hard to find, massive wealth enables the almost arbitrary creation of oligarchies.
Is anyone else nervous?
Why would talented technologists and successful technology entrepreneurs become political activists?
Is Musk looking to “fix” Twitter’s technology? Or is he looking for a platform to influence public policy? The first motive is consistent with his technologist calling, but the second is something else altogether.
Obviously anyone can buy anything. Even really expensive things if he or she has the money. That said, billions of dollars were lost the moment the deal closed. Was Musk “forced” to do the deal or – in spite of the ridiculous price – was there another motive?
Context
Zachary Karabell describes it:
“The fear that Musk will somehow turn Twitter into his personal megaphone belies that fact that it already is — and that’s true for many others too. And the fear that he will turn Twitter into an ungovernable sphere of false information belies the fact that in many ways it currently is just that, along with a magnificent sphere for finding information and like-minded people and groups.”
So why do so many see Musk’s acquisition of Twitter as “different”? Karabell again:
“Why then is Musk buying Twitter seen as such as dangerous anomaly? In part, it’s because Twitter isn’t a publication distributed in the public square (digitally or physically), it is one of the squares. In that way it’s more like a very big network than a single media property.”
You bet it’s different. Not just because “it’s more like a very big network than a single media property,” but because it’s now owned by a technology celebrity. For this reason alone it will influence public policy. Not sure? Anything Musk says – now in his own public square – about free speech will be covered over and over again, coverage that will itself influence the context, definition and policy around free speech the same way TV stars, medical hucksters and retired football players influence policy.
Credibility
The free speech discussion has been going on for decades – centuries, in fact. Has Musk published a definitive essay on free speech? (Tweets don’t count.) Is he a credentialed expert on free speech? Then why is he part of the free speech debate? Much more importantly, why does he want to be part of the free speech debate? Obviously, anyone can opine about free speech – which is the essence of free speech! But credentials are important when tackling existential policy. Would you listen to your pre-schoolers about how to stop global warming?
The Platform Needs Technology Help
There’s lots to do on the platform – lots to keep Elon busy for a long time. The interface needs work. Scalability, accessibility, integration and security – among other “fixes” – are on the list. Real-time should mean “real-time.” Bot-control is essential. Pay-for-tweets is another innovation (for Twitter) that should be explored. The elephant in the room is the technological control of hate speech and the spreading of misinformation and disinformation. Musk appears to want to “regulate” certain speech through a content moderation council, or some such entity, while servicing his definition of free speech. The clues he provides are, as usual, opaque, but this is all technologically possible. It’s also relatively easy to give Twitter users the ability to fine-filter the content they see well beyond the current tools. Machine learning and generative AI can help here. These are just a few of the technological challenges – in the technologist’s swim lane – facing Twitter.
Grandiose or Naïve?
Elon Musk:
“The reason why I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital square, where a wide variety of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence. There is currently a 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.”
The future of civilization somehow depends on Twitter? This is news.
According to Drew Harwell, Taylor Lorenz and Cat Zakrzewski writing in The Washington Post (in 2022), since Musk closed the deal, the amount of racist “free speech” has exploded:
“An emboldened cast of anonymous trolls spewed racist slurs and Nazi memes onto Twitter in the hours after billionaire industrialist Elon Musk took over the social network, raising fears that his pledge of unrestricted free speech could fuel a new wave of online hate.”
Problems of Your Own Acquisition
Some problems are unsolvable – especially when you think they’re not. Scott Galloway said it best: “he’s essentially dug a pit for himself filled it with cobras and grenades and jumped in.”
When you’re a world-class swimmer, swim lanes are your friends. But when you leave the pool, you can drown in things other than technology. Please, please stay in your lane where you can continue to set records and help us solve some of the toughest problems we face. How about global warming? Poverty? Food? Drug discovery? Education? You don’t need X to do this. You have the talent to do this as a technologist, not a political activist. There are lots of partisan activists, but not enough serious, impactful technologists like you.
