Elon Musk, Twitter, and Free Speech
The left and the right have vastly different views on the acquisition, but this stands to benefit everyone.
As most people are aware by now, Elon Musk is in the final stages of purchasing Twitter. The offer of $44 billion dollars has been accepted by Twitter’s board and we’re likely to see $TWTR go private. Depending on who you talk to, this is either the “saddest day” to ever happen to you since you “lost 3 children to cancer” …
…or it’s the “21st century version of Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves” …
Now I sincerely hope that both of the above tweets are said in jest, but the purchase has created a deep divide in the Twitter-verse.
Let’s look at some of the facts of this purchase, starting with:
Who owned Twitter before Elon?
Prior to Elon Musk purchasing Twitter, it was a publicly traded company, but the majority holders included The Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and Morgan Stanley. This fact seems to go unnoticed by most people, the right-leaning people of Twitter (referred to as “the right”) generally don’t care too much about this fact, since capitalism allows for large corporations to pool money and own products to make themselves money, and the left-leaning people of Twitter (referred to as “the left”) find it easier to lay the blame on one person for all the world’s woes instead of faceless financial corporations and hedge funds. Perhaps that last part isn’t entirely true, as there was some stink about faceless financial corporation BlackRock purchasing houses as investments during the pandemic which priced potential homeowners out of the market, but that makes me question the left’s logic even more. Why wouldn’t you be cheering for corporations and financial groups no longer controlling the digital town square?
Prior to this, of course, Twitter was owned and run by @Jack Dorsey, an original co-founder and CEO of Twitter. After the news of the acquisition broke, he agreed with this sentiment,
A company like BlackRock could, in theory, censor Twitter for its own financial gain. It could cover up scandalous articles about itself or hide information that would hurt its bottom line. These are things that some on the left are currently concerned Elon might do on Twitter. However, Elon has expressed time and again that these are not his intentions.
Even if we don’t want to trust him here, or take his words at face value, it’s still more than the previous owners have ever stated in regard to keeping free speech on the platform, but there’s more to it than that. Being a publicly traded company means that there is fiduciary duty to shareholders. Essentially, they must make decisions that make shareholders more money, whether those decisions align with the original moral and ethical standards of the company are irrelevant when revenue comes into play. Privatization means that ethical and moral standards can be followed, even if it hurts revenue. This is something Dorsey touches on in his tweets and is why he’s happy to see Wallstreet no longer own Twitter.
Let’s talk about Free Speech
In Elon’s tweet, Twitter is regarded as the “digital town square” what does that mean exactly? Well, there’s an idea of a “town square test” which was originally proposed by former Soviet dissident and human rights activist Natan Sharansky. Sharansky proposed in his book “The Case for Democracy” that:
"If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a 'fear society' has finally won their freedom."
This same logic is being applied here for Twitter by Elon. Of course, blatant threats and criminal activity aren’t tolerated in a real town square, so it’s unlikely we’ll see Twitter devolve into an unmoderated hell-storm of chaos, (as if it wasn’t this already) but what we’ll likely see is more opposing views being acceptable. Prior to the acquisition, Twitter came under fire by the right for moderation decisions in regard to criticisms levied at trans athletes. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) in a now deleted tweet wrote:
“Women’s sports are for women, not men pretending to be women,”
The tweet included a targeted ad which dead-named Lia Thomas. Whether you agree with the sentiment in this post or not, it should be acceptable for someone to espouse those views in a free speech town square. Transphobia is obviously awful, and we shouldn’t condone it, but rightfully so this representative has been criticized and ostracized as a result, Twitter as the digital town square just shouldn’t be the moral arbiter here.
The strongest way to push back against disagreeable beliefs is to bring them to light and discuss why they are wrong. Letting them fester in the dark, or over in a separate platform, only creates more divides and radicalization of the belief.
As a final note, the 1st Amendment exists primarily to prevent government from silencing dissenting opinions of its narrative. Disagreements between citizens is only a part of it. If the government says the sky is red, you can disagree and call it blue with the 1st Amendment. The very fear that you might be called out for a false narrative helps keep people in check, and even when they do act out of line, other people are able to hold them accountable. This is what the public town square is all about. The town square deciding what is or isn’t acceptable to say sets a precedent that the narrative can be controlled. Elon’s stance is instead agreeing with the 1st Amendment, and firmly asserting that the narrative will not and should not be controlled.
Benefits of a private company versus a publicly traded one
This section will hopefully be brief, but this is something that Elon himself has commented on previously and something I briefly touched on earlier. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, which means every decision the company makes has to keep in mind the bottom line. For example, advertisers may decide they don’t want to advertise on a platform which allows pictures of guns to be posted. This could result in Twitter deciding to ban posting images of guns on the platform to keep advertisers coming back. This is something we’ve seen happen with YouTube, where gun content creators have been pushed away by the algorithm and not considered advertiser friendly. This resulted in them having to find alternative means such as Patreon to make money off the videos they post, many of which are educational in nature. By taking Twitter private, Elon can ignore advertisers, he can choose to take less in profits in order to maintain a moral or ethical position that images of guns should be allowed to be posted. This is a good thing.
This idea that there will be no de-platforming of opinions we don’t like can work for both sides as well. In the future, perhaps the prevailing narrative is that gay conversion therapy is acceptable and should be encouraged. Platforms may decide to hide or disincentivize the opposing opinion that gay conversion therapy should be banned in the name of generating more money, since advertisers may not be comfortable advertising near opponents to gay conversion therapy. Twitter being a digital town square that is privately owned would mean that no action would need to be taken or could be coerced into being taken to prevent people from espousing the belief that gay conversion therapy ought to be banned. In other words, both the left and right can gain from this. While the right seems to gain more immediately, seeing as Twitter has predominantly become more left leaning in their policy decisions, but the pendulum of politics swings, and over time the left may find that they benefit more from the digital town square being less policed.
Approaching Midterms
A complaint I’ve seen levied, although not as frequently as I’d expect, is that midterms are approaching, and Elon’s purchase of Twitter comes at a ripe time for him to control the narrative and push candidates he likes to the front of your feed. This is possible, but unlikely. Elon has said he wants to open source the algorithm for how your feed is generated, and how content is distributed. If this is done, then we’ll know if any manipulation is occurring. Additionally, this would go against the entire idea of a digital town square that Elon wants Twitter to be.
Let’s be honest though, Twitter has already been doing this before Elon took over. During the pandemic, Twitter and other social media sites became the arbiter of truth for a few of the narratives, the US President Donald Trump was given misinformation tags below some of his tweets along with many other Twitter users for keywords that Twitter deemed to be problematic and against the established scientific opinion. As a moderate leftist myself, I can see why this may sound like a conservative complaint on the surface. Those posts were obviously spreading misinformation! However, as I’ve said before, it sets a precedent that there is an established narrative and those who go against it will be artificially silenced by the town square, which is not the town square’s job. The town square is meant only to exist, and misinformation is meant to be disproven by fellow citizens like the 1st amendment intends. The pendulum swings, and it’s possible one day we might have found disinformation tags under predominantly left held beliefs if the current Twitter management continued to appease advertisers. Our short-term view of situations often clouds the bigger picture.
What about world hunger?
This is a section that I was not expecting to have to write about in regard to this acquisition, but it’s another large whataboutism that I’m hearing over and over, and is big on my discord server, Blue Politics, so I’ll take some time to address it. In 2021, David Beasley, who leads the UN World Food Programme (WFP) congratulated Musk for becoming the world’s wealthiest person and surpassing Jeff Bezos. He asked Musk to “help us save 42M people from starvation for just $6.6B!!”
In a follow up tweet by Dr. Eli David, it was stated 2% of Elon’s wealth is $6B. He also states that WFP raised $8.4B but didn’t “solve world hunger” in 2020.
In response to Dr. Eli David, Elon requested:
Beasley replied stating the headline in Eli’s post is not accurate and that in reality it would just prevent “geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation”
To which Elon clapped back with an article about how UN officials forced children to perform sex acts in order to receive food.
Was this tasteless to point out on Musk’s part?
Yes.
Was the CNN headline misleading of Beasley’s assertion?
Yes.
Can we really blame Elon for being confused about the impact his $6.6B would have? No.
David Beasley has a difficult job, and I applaud his efforts to feed those in need, but his organization not taking accountability for these actions is worthy of criticism. The UN has been criticized numerous times for corruption, or for corrupt leaders stealing assets, so the idea that Elon would want to know exactly how his money is going to be spent seems reasonable, especially when they’re asking for $6.6 billion dollars on top of the billions that they already receive to help prevent world hunger.
What about the plan? Well as far as I could find, a preliminary outline was given, but nothing as extensive as you’d hope for. Assuming Elon never saw the original Beasley article and instead only saw the misrepresentative CNN headline, it’s possible that he hoped the plan would end all world hunger, and not just a temporary band-aid for 42M people.
The US Defense Department requested $705.4 billion dollars on Defense in FY2021. As an overall entity the government spent $6.8 trillion in FY2021. That spending went towards Medicare, Social Security, defense and veterans, debt interest, and assistance such as stimulus checks or unemployment insurance. Elon Musk is worth $264.6 billion dollars overall, that’s not his yearly spending or how much he makes in a year, that’s all of his wealth. If he liquidated all of his $264.6 billion, and if world hunger could be solved for only $6.6 billion/year (which it can’t), he would only be able to solve it for 40 years. In other words, our government is in a far better position to end world hunger. Why can’t the government take $6.6 billion and give it to the UN’s WFP when it’s requested? After all, it’s 2% of Elon’s overall net worth, but only 0.09% of what the government spends in a year.
The reality is world hunger is not a problem any one man can solve. It’s a result of continual government failures in local regions, as well as global markets that waste food. Elon’s $6.6 billion would be far better used investing in better transportation methods to ship food so that it doesn’t spoil, or the creation of local infrastructure and farms where populations currently are suffering from food shortages to lower shipping time/cost. This wasn’t the pitch WFP gave to Elon though. WFP’s plan in essence is just shipping food to communities in need and paying people to hand it out.
As a result of the above, urgent funding for a comprehensive package of live-saving assistance to these populations is required, in the form of in-kind distribution and/or the provision of cash and vouchers. US$6.6 billion is needed to avert catastrophe.
This will be allocated as follows: US$3.5 billion for food and its delivery, including the cost of shipping and transport to the country, plus warehousing and “last mile” delivery of food using air, land and river transport, contracted truck drivers and required security escorts in conflict-affected zones to distribute food to those who need it most; US$2 billion for cash and food vouchers (including transaction fees) in places where markets can function - this type of assistance enables those most in need to buy the food of their choice and supports local economies; US$700 million for country-specific costs to design, scale up and manage the implementation of efficient and effective programmes for millions of tons more food and cash transfers and vouchers – adapted to the in-country conditions and operational risks in 43 countries (this includes office and satellite-office facilities and their security, and the monitoring of distributions and results, ensuring the assistance reaches the most vulnerable); and US$400 million for global and regional operations management, administration and accountability, including coordination of global supply lines and aviation routes; global logistics coordination such as freight contracting; global monitoring and analysis of hunger worldwide; and risk management and independent auditors dedicated to oversight.
It doesn’t improve infrastructure or create any meaningful long-lasting solution; it just provides a band-aid temporary fix. Elon’s not the type to go for band-aid solutions. Looking at any of the companies he’s invested and worked in, he looks for long-term solutions, benefits, and sustainability. Tesla creates EVs that lower carbon emissions over their entire life cycle, Tesla Solar has expanded clean home energy generation and storage, SpaceX has created reusable rockets and expanded StarLink internet which will create global internet access, Neuralink is developing solutions to neurological disorders that can permanently fix symptoms. It’s no surprise to me that Elon wouldn’t go for WFP’s plan of a band-aid solution that would require another $6.6 billion investment the next year. It goes back to the old saying: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
In Conclusion
We can all make assumptions and guesses towards the reasons Elon wanted to purchase Twitter, or whether he will act on the claims he’s made, but I’m sure that we’ll be just fine.
There’s much more I could’ve covered, but a big inspiration of mine and someone who I’ve followed for a while, Noah Smith, has already written a great SubStack about their own opinions on the acquisition. They go into greater details about issues that Twitter has, and how Elon Musk may have the ability to fix better than a board of investors. These topics include Chinese and Russian bots, cancel culture, quote tweets, and a litany of other things. So instead of treading ground already covered, I wanted to give some different coverage based on complaints and criticisms that I’ve been reading and hearing. Please read Noah’s article as well though if any of those listed subjects interest you.