Follow back?

By Dr Mariann Hardey, August 2022

Would Elon Musk’s Twitter be the democratic free speech haven he claims? Dr Mariann Hardey reflects on the billionaire’s deal to buy the social media platform. 

Oh, a billionaire buying a tech company.  

According to the recent app prompt, I was an early adopter of Twitter and just passed my 15th Twitter-versary. In retrospect, and I think a lot about this (daily), the primary indicator of whether something is good for you or not is… time. Specifically, the part when we realise how much of our day is given for free to the platform.   

The social accounts I started in the 1990s (bFB, before FB) had defined boundaries, controlled content (with effective moderators), and received generally-expected etiquette feedback. Frankly, there wasn’t much you could do beyond sharing favourite music, IM-ing, or adding to the many discussion threads built into a listserv. Then social media emerged, and we started to enjoy real-time updates and dedicated more time to the platforms to discover new things or get shouted down for beliefs we thought were personal and private to us. 

It’s a choppy time for big tech. Elon Musk’s aggressive negotiation to seize control of Twitter, while promoting a PR narrative (mainly on Twitter) around the liberation of the site, underscores the complex set of relationships users have with platforms. Twitter is essentially a thing that we use. We use it for ‘free’ (aside from our labour and content on the site, but practically anyone who has access to the internet can sign up). Like its counterparts, it’s also a thing characterised by the perspectives of the CEO and major shareholders’ vision for the site. 

In numerous conversations, many posted as Twitter threads, Elon Musk has shouted to followers about what he promises to do with Twitter. 

Musk is the world’s richest man — intent on enabling people to live on other planets and accelerate sustainable transport. For Twitter, Musk promises an open, free and authenticated experience. He’s recently tweeted that the Twitter deal has been put temporarily on hold pending details on the proportion of spam/fake accounts.  

I’d be surprised if this prevented Musk from securing Twitter. Instead, this is the subtle art of negotiation involving due diligence to test the value proposition and ensure Musk doesn’t spend too much on closing the deal. 

It’s not easy to understand the consensus behind huge (astronomic) valuations in big tech markets. In the US, where most major tech billionaires and their companies are based, there’s increasing scrutiny from politicians concerning the monopoly trend of companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter and others to distort information and grab all the profits they can. Democratic Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is well known for speaking out against giant and greedy Silicon Valley tech companies. Musk has a reputation as a shrewd businessman — a mogul who follows his gut and dreams, believing that his investment is correct. At the SXSW 2018 conference, Musk explained his business fortitude, often acting on impulse. It’s easy to see why a social media company whose operations are based on impulsive streams of consciousness would appeal. 

The news that a billionaire is initially seeking to buy with another tech company doesn’t seem that interesting. This is reminiscent of the rat finding the cheese in a maze test — a test revealing that rats are very smart, quick and like cheese. 

The features of billionaires buying  

tech companies: 

Control  

Musk tweets for freedom of expression: “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.” I’m pretty sure Twitter tried this approach back in the old days, but then the company and its users had to deal with the reality of farmed bots, trolls and users with high follower counts (key persons of influence) who march into the town square and shout the loudest. Musk may have overlooked (or maybe he isn’t concerned about) EU legislation moderating illegal and harmful content. Even town squares need rules and policing. 

Musk’s mission is “free speech”. Ironically, this billionaire seems intent on buying a social media platform under the umbrella of free speech principles so he can control the narrative. Maybe, but it’s also clear the mission of Musk is to invest in a profitable tech company and distract our attention ahead of the sh*tshow that is the no-rules, anyone can post, welcome Trump back, marketplace. 

Principles 

With great wealth comes telling the little people what to do. A more honest description of social media would be ‘marketplace platforms’ or ‘consumer data tailing’. Social media platforms make a show of protecting their users while simultaneously selling their data to third parties and tracking them over long periods to better sell them more things, sell this information onto third parties, and continue to follow them to… you get the picture. So, Twitter, along with all its friends and followers, isn’t a marketplace based on consumer data tracking; it’s a democracy. Use the word ‘democracy’ and your billionaire is offering us salvation and voilà… more profits. 

Today, I negotiated with my six-year-old the number of marshmallows reasonable in a hot chocolate (it’s a lot). Today, I began calling the dog Number One, which I am sure means that I’m Captain of the Enterprise. So, I’m just like US representative Katie Porter with her whiteboard. 

On Musk’s Twitter, you won’t be a user but a visitor to his town square — let’s make no pretence who will be mayor. ‘Town square’ implies a socially safe space, and ‘visitor’ ensures you forget about the strong market forces following your every move. 

Red flags  

The cat has informed me she will eat a ball of yarn, a red flag. Obviously. And potentially expensive vet bills. So now we’re going to review the Twitter-Musk, Twusk(?), and Mutter(?) red flags. 

Twitter isn’t a democracy. It’s a tech company designed to make its shareholders and investors’ money. With a billionaire at the helm, ‘free speech’ becomes an effective PR strategy to produce more content and set the town square on fire. 

One observation by John Naughton, writing for The Guardian, is the tight spot Musk will find himself in with Chinese investors. If Musk refuses to initiate new levels of control for Twitter over what the Chinese state perceives to be seditious content, this could be very damaging for Tesla. 

The above is Big Tech frippery: big billionaires and big nations posturing to each other. 

An actual red flag is the coordination of far-right accounts to abolish women’s rights. Social media feels already a very unsafe space for women. Much like many real-life town squares, we must choose carefully when to enter those spaces and how long to stay there. 

Musk created controversy in Texas when he implemented a new company policy to pay for Tesla employees’ out-of-state abortions. 

Ok, fine… So, is it the Chief Executive’s role to impose rules and intervene — or is Musk leaving the town square to its misogyny and trolls? 

The social media maze is windy with lots of dead ends, but the stale cheese means it’s beginning to smell. 

Please don’t follow back.   

More information on Dr Hardey's research interests.