The world’s richest man gets more power
The world’s richest man gets more power
It’s about power, but they want you debating “free speech”
Hi, Ari here, and while I’m off The Beat this week for vacation, I still wanted to share some thoughts about power, technology and Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. As someone who spent years practicing First Amendment law, some of the recent debate has been really interesting.
And you can always subscribe here to receive all my newsletter entries:
Media is what they say it is
About half of Americans get their news primarily from social media. Some of that may be actual news, simply distributed online, or commentary about actual news, and related discourse. That’s the simple part.
Then there’s a ton of other stuff -- claims presented in the “look” of news that are actually just random material (not reported or fact-checked by a news source); active hoaxes designed to deceive people; and libelous material that is not even protected by the First Amendment. From politics to Covid to climate change, what people believe and think they know shapes the rest of our debate and self-government. For all the talk about the traditional media, consider that at key points in the last election, misinformation on Facebook alone reached six times more people than news articles posted on line. Six times!
So, all of that makes social media a significant and volatile channel of information. That’s why so many people care about the world’s richest person buying one of the most influential sites, Twitter -- regardless of whether one personally uses Twitter, or “likes” its current format.
Elon Musk is buying Twitter. (He got approval, financing, and would have to pay a billion dollars if he bails out now.)
Musk’s work and record is nuanced and complicated. He has made remarkable contributions to innovation. He upended the auto industry and may do the same in space. Tesla alone has cut emissions more than most organizations and corporations in the modern era.
“No one man should have all this power…”
Musk is also something of a savant when it comes to building wealth and power, and maneuvering through public opinion and politics. In the U.S., he is now riding a wave of excitement and support on the Right for the idea that his control of Twitter will benefit the conservative agenda broadly, and restore Donald Trump to the platform, specifically.
Will that happen? We will see.
But it’s remarkable to watch one person take control of this entire platform -- denying people direct power in owning it -- and get cheered on by many of the very people who will now have less say over the platform than if it were a publicly traded platform.
Musk is telling investors he can make Twitter more profitable.
He is telling users, especially on the Right, he will make it more protective of “free speech.”
He has a legal obligation to the investors (fiduciary duty), but only his word for everyone else.
And while there are many ways to improve Twitter and its treatment of speech -- including better policies on what is banned and how -- Musk has yet to engage on that in a meaningful way.
Freedom or politics
So far, Musk has largely invoked “free speech” the way Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis do -- as a vague, one-sided slogan that selectively applies to their own sense of political grievance. Maybe that’s Musk’s clever, cynical way to deflect the conversation away from a billionaire amassing power, and inject it into America’s polarization machine. Or maybe it’s a genuine confusion about these issues, (which might be improved over time).
The “tough” calls in free speech come in drawing the tough lines.
What’s the difference between hardball rhetoric and actual calls to violence? What’s the difference between understandable exaggeration and intentional fraud? What is the kind of speech that is so obviously dangerous to others that patrolling it outweighs an absolute open door to say anything?
The last question is one we’ve all heard before -- you don’t get to lie and shout “fire” in a crowded theater, under the First Amendment.
The foreseeable cost is way too high for the value of that lie. What about tweeting lies about a bomb in a crowded place? Or calls for hurting people? What about tweeting lies that likely induce (even a small number of) people to hurt themselves… or hurt themselves by avoiding vaccines based on a lie? How many statements “over the line” should eject someone from the platform for a long time, or “permanently”? Was Twitter consistent in the way it banned Trump indefinitely? (I’ve said no, in previous coverage.) How should the site’s architecture and algorithm highlight and incentivize certain contributions?...
These can be tough calls. The answers rarely fit neatly into one side’s partisan agenda.
Before Musk, Twitter had a large group of people trying to make those calls.
Now it’s anyone’s guess.
If he uses his power to shrink that group down, or anoint himself the final decision maker on the big calls, there is very little evidence in history that consolidating that kind of power will improve, fair, disinterested decision-making. (Why would he err on the side of giving more free speech to critics of, say, Tesla or Elon Musk? He hasn’t operated that way in the past, as the NY Times recently reported).
At this point, much of the public discourse has fixated on a cartoon version of these debates, which happens to serve Musk’s interest.
On The Beat, we recently did a more detailed special report on these issues, scrutinizing the sheer consolidation of power at play. Most of the “free speech” debate remains hypothetical, until Musk starts transparently or honestly showing what he is going to change, if anything. The power debate is glaring, by contrast. Is public discourse and democracy enhanced by one (already rich and powerful) person taking control of a medium that can make or break candidates, public figures and sometimes entire organizations? Doubtful.
The fanciest summer fruit
If that all seems like a downer, let’s not forget how powerful Twitter can be to discuss truly inane items. For example:
That came from the heart, and sparked a depth of fruit debates that I would have never known existed. Thank goodness there was free speech for that!
Even if you’re not on Twitter, if you think it’s a waste of time (you’re probably right, by the way, my favorite use for it is talking about food), this is worth paying attention to. Musk cares about — and is going to impose on Twitter users — his definition of free speech. He cares about this more than the billions of dollars that he’s spending.
Ari, Thank you for your thought-provoking journalism. I love that you cover fun subjects like music and food on your excellent show which I always enjoy with a glass of Cabernet. As a retired reading teacher, I certainly support free speech and freedom of the press. But watching the apparent decline of so many Americans' ability to think critically and discern truth from fallacy is so disheartening. I do hope my life's work was not wasted. Teach your children well.
Of all Ari's subjects to date, this one holds my greatest interest. I eagerly look forward to reading all comments.