Musk and Twitter: Manage Expectations, Everyone.
Transforming Twitter won’t be easy, and may not mean what you think. It should mean both “free speech,” and civil discourse. There’s a path forward. I have an idea.
Congratulations to the nation’s richest and perhaps its most interesting man, Elon Musk, for his $44 billion purchase of the social media site, Twitter. Launched around 2008 (when I joined) along with Facebook and other “big tech” initiatives, it has transmogrified from a “town hall” to that church scene in the first Kingsman movie, where Collin Firth stars in a famous scene that gets. . . interesting.
The initial responses are almost comical. Progressives lamenting a billionaire taking over a media outlet, the same people who yawned or fawned when the second richest man, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, bought the Washington Post, which used to be an icon of genuine journalism. From National Review: “…when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, Business Insider described the acquisition as ‘a fascinating cultural transition in America,’ whereas when Elon Musk bought Twitter, the outlet described it as ‘a chilling new threat.’ Musk, as ever, is Schrödinger’s billionaire.”
It baffles this American mind why so many on the left are so afraid of free speech. After all, as author and blogger Alex Berenson notes, Twitter’s terms of service in 2009 explicitly declaimed censorship.
Berenson, a former New York Times reporter, was kicked off Twitter recently for his reporting on the efficacy - or lack thereof - of COVID-19 vaccines.
Fox News reported this:
“New York Times reporter Talmon Joseph Smith tweeted that the mood inside Twitter HQ is "absolutely insane" with an internal source telling him, "I feel like im going to throw up..I rly don’t wanna work for a company that is owned by Elon Musk."
Musk’s acquisition of Twitter sparked a firestorm this week with conservatives on social media praising the move in hopes that Musk would curb Twitter censorship and liberals threatening to leave the platform while fretting about the possibility of former President Donald Trump being reinstated.”
Musk, on the other hand, has made his agenda quite clear. Fox News, again:
"’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,’ Musk said in a press release confirming the deal. "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."
Twitter, which is not particularly profitable (their stock pays no dividends, and earnings per share is weak despite impressive sales growth), is the world’s 15th largest social media site, according to datareportal.com. Chinese-owned TikTok, Meta owned Instagram, and Google-owned YouTube all surpass it. Twitter has 77 million users in the US. Facebook, on the other hand, the largest social media site in the world, has about 180 million US users and nearly 3 billion around the world. It clearly has upside potential, financial and otherwise.
It further baffles me that Musk offered $44 billion - over $54 per share (it will probably close around $49 per share today) - for a company whose total sales last year finally topped $5 billion. That makes them about half the size of my former employer, the 150+ year old Campbell Soup Company (CSC), whose earnings per share nearly double Twitter’s (TWTR), which unlike Campbell produces nothing. That it took Twitter’s board this long to agree to such a generous price also baffles. The primary responsibility of public corporations is enhance shareholder value. Musk plans to take the company private. Probably before he takes it public again and makes another boatload of money.
But what makes Twitter influential - and obviously valuable - is its use by opinion leaders and media personalities as a public square, or a town hall. Twitter, Facebook, and all social media outlets make their money on selling “eyeballs,” to advertisers, and the more, the better. Most social media outlets and especially Facebook are masters at microtargeting. They also probably sell information about you, although they claim to protect your privacy. Umm, sure.
Nothing Musk says about his acquisition is focused on their revenue model, other than the business model - focusing on free speech versus censorious “safe speech” for The Left. And that’s what drives the left bat crazy while exciting conservatives and libertarians.
Everyone needs to temper their fears, hopes, and expectations for Musk and his Twitter agenda. Moving from a Mad Max, post-apocalyptic online thunderdome to a digital town square won’t happen overnight.
First, Musk has big challenges, starting with Twitter’s workforce. And government officials here and abroad are right behind them. As usual, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wasted no time to promote a “wealth tax.” Do not underestimate their ability gum up the works. Like the Germans at Normandy before D-Day, they will litter the beaches with barriers and mines to thwart Musk’s assault. While woke employees will no doubt leave for other censorious outlets, create new ones, or simply cash out their stock and go play, remaining employees may try to unionize, or worse. Further watch for work stoppages and slowdowns. That won’t completely stop Musk from an ability to reorganize Twitter, but it will slow him down.
Second, while Musk may end Twitter’s censorship of conservatives and even right-leaning satirical sites (Musk’s motivation to buy Twitter was reportedly spurred by the site’s canceling the satirical Babylon Bee’s account), don’t expect him to stop the left’s use of Twitter to dox and expose conservative or anti-left sites such as @libsofTikTok. Washington Post technology writer and resident chief hypocrite Taylor Lorenz doxed the creator of @libsofTikTok, which has been an anonymous site, having whined about being far more modestly attacked from the right.
Third, Musk suggests that he wants more transparency on Twitter, which might mean the end of “bots” not attached to real people and possibly anonymous sites, some of which are the funniest on the social media (at least the ones that haven’t been canceled). Some use anonymity to comment without fear of being doxxed. Perhaps you remember Pierre Delecto, which was exposed to be Senator Mitt Romney’s “anonymous” site. Who else would pick “Pierre Delecto?” The name alone is a roadmap to Romney, since it describes his political persona perfectly. “C’est Moi,” he confessed when confronted.
For the record, I ended my account on personal Twitter nearly two years ago, but replaced it with an anonymous account to follow certain writers and political experts, with rare but civil commentary. I will be happy to end my anonymity if and when Musk 1) makes me, and 2) makes it a safer place to avoid being doxed and maliciously and falsely attacked and defamed. Such attacks don’t look very good in Google searches, as many job seekers may have found out. I’m not holding my breath on the latter. I hope he finds a way to expose and curb marauding organizations on seek-and-destroy Twitter missions.
Since we’re all now offering suggestions to Musk to improve Twitter, I have three of my own, including one he’s already championed - the ability to edit tweets. We all should be given some grace to correct errors, grammatical or otherwise, or clarify points, without having to delete or retweet corrections. Bully for you, Elon.
My second suggestion: Provide the ability to hyperlink within tweets to help substantiate points made in tweets while preserving the ability to promote links at the same time. I use hyperlinks extensively in my posts here for that reason.
Some have suggested that Musk also increase the number of characters allowed from the current 280 to match what other sites have done, perhaps up to 700. Hyperlinks in tweets would make that less necessary. One commentator has suggested making 280 characters a minimum. That is interesting since it might thwart the quick drive-by attacks under the guise of commentary that dominate the digital swamp. I find longer posts on other social media outlets to be more thoughtful, even if it slows my scrolling. After all, 280 characters is really nothing.
But my third suggestion is my most serious: Musk should not only reform the silly “blue check” verification system - which seems to favor Democrats and liberals while people on the right are ignored - but create a voluntary new “green check” system for people who will commit to standards of civility in their posts and communications. He could turn to any number of non-profit organizations to help develop standards, including the Stubblefield Institute for Civil Political Communication at West Virginia’s Shepherd University (disclosure - I am a founding board member). Perhaps “Love Your Enemies” author Arthur Brooks could weigh in.
And let responsible third parties - not Twitter employees - enforce the green-check code.
The major battle Musk faces is over the controversial topic of “disinformation.” A green-check program could responsibility help address that by requiring such “certified” tweeters to be prepared to document sources of assertions or claims (again, which hyperlinks in tweets would help). This would include prohibiting ad hominem attacks, doxing, defamation and slander, and profanity. Eliminating anonymous accounts behind which people hide to digitally assault people would be a worthy contribution to civil discourse.
Another challenge: how do you prevent people from tweeting genuinely stupid things that invite mockery? Perhaps you really can’t fix stupid. See @libsofTikTok on Twitter for examples. It has over one million followers. There’s a reason. They’re now on this platform, Substack.
Again, a green-check program would be voluntary, so if you wanted to continue your profane, snarky, and abusive persona, no one would stop you (no threats of violence, I hope). And hopefully, people will simply ignore you.
Of course, the woke will insist on broadening this as much as possible to censor conservatives who oppose their “gender identity” and other left wing agendas. Musk will need to keep such a program narrow and specific to preserve his “free speech” agenda. But that which gets rewarded gets repeated. Right now, Twitter currently condones if not enables doxing and the coarseness of our dialogue.
Congratulations again to Musk. I hope he returns Twitter to its original promise with incentives and safeguards to promote and protect genuinely free and responsible speech. He also has an opportunity to help elevate our discourse through meaningful incentives. It’s going to be a challenge, but a worthwhile one.