Twitter, the social media platform that has been publicly traded since 2013, is expected to come under private ownership once again. This news comes with Elon Musk’s $44 billion offer to acquire the platform just a few weeks ago. Musk has been quoted praising the platform’s “tremendous potential” that he hopes to unlock through the changes he intends on implementing (BBC, 2022). Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, and the changes he intends to make on the social media platform, will have a lasting effect on the way in which misinformation and disinformation circulate on the app.
In the brief history of social media, substantial changes to the way in which the apps or parent companies function have frequently led to unexpected consequences, regardless of the intentions behind the changes. For example, in 2012, when Mark Zuckerberg was in the process of taking Facebook public, he wrote to investors that he hoped to “rewire the way people spread and consume information” (The Atlantic, 2022). While his intentions were seemingly positive, this refabrication of the way society exchanges information led to various consequences such as increased political polarization, fragmentation of the public, and a reduction in the trust of American institutions (The Atlantic, 2022).
Although potentially well intentioned, social media allocated more power to “trolls and provocateurs while silencing good citizens” (The Atlantic, 2022). Zuckerberg was successful in changing the world with social media, but perhaps even he was unaware of just how influential it would become.
Twitter, too, has had its fair share of controversial influence on society. Twitter has played an instrumental role in the fabrication of conspiracies within the United States. Although free speech is not guaranteed on the current platform and users are subject to being banned, false information still circulates on the app. Far too often, ideas spread on Twitter and other platforms have resulted in uproar and violent actions such as the Pizzagate incident or the January 6th insurrection. However, under its current framework, Twitter is permitted to evaluate and ban users for misconduct, and even went so far as to ban Donald Trump from the platform while he was President of the United States.
After issuing his offer to acquire Twitter, Musk discussed the changes he hopes to make to the platform. Among these changes, Musk hopes to eliminate bot accounts and advertisements. Additionally, he wants to ensure absolute freedom of speech, and is considering implementing a subscription fee for the social network (Time, 2022).
It is these changes that will have a lasting effect on the way in which misinformation and disinformation circulate on the app. As previously discussed, certain information circulated on Twitter has resulted in uproar and violence, even with the current structure of the platform. This free speech absolutism would likely increase the frequency of these incidents. Although Musk has stated that hate speech will not be tolerated, he has yet to comment on the “gray areas” (Time, 2022).
Additionally, as mentioned in Can Citizens Discern?, the very fabric of democracy is contingent on voters critiquing the government, and holding representatives accountable. Twitter has increasingly been used by the public as a news source, and Disinformation in Democracies emphasizes social media’s impact on “political decision-making and electoral outcomes,” and its ability to “exacerbate the spread of disinformation and misinformation” (Argüello et al., 2019). The societal influence that social media holds means that uninhibited free speech on platforms like Twitter could misinform voters and obstruct truth, thereby limiting the people’s ability to hold their representatives properly accountable.
Musk’s hopes to eliminate bots by requiring human authentication when creating an account could be a potential breach of users’ privacy and will put an end to the platform’s pseudonymity (Time, 2022). However, ensuring that all users’ accounts are directly linked to their government name will hold them culpable for their online presence and may reduce the spread of mis/disinformation.
Another change that Musk has expressed interest in is subscription fees. Implementing subscription fees would eliminate the need for ad revenue, and removing ads from the platform would significantly reduce the circulation of misinformation.
It is important to consider Musk’s intentions because after all, he is the one who will be steering Twitter in whatever direction it goes. It is clear that he intends to make significant changes to Twitter, but it is unclear how exactly he intends to do so. It is no secret that Musk is highly intelligent, so it is likely safe to infer that he has thought about the various contingencies that will result from his changes and possible solutions to them, but until he vocalizes these thoughts it is difficult to determine his intentions.
The transformation of Twitter under the private ownership of Elon Musk will be extraordinarily impactful on the way in which misinformation and disinformation circulates on the platform and around the world. While some of Musk’s changes may increase the prevalence of mis/disinformation on Twitter, others may have the opposite effect. Perhaps, Musk’s intentions are the greatest contributing factor to how effective, or ineffective, these changes will be.
References
Can Citizens Discern? Information Credibility, Political Sophistication, and the Punishment of Corruption in Brazil by Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro & Matthew Winters.
Disinformation in Democracies: Strengthening Digital Resilience in Latin America by Maria Fernanda Pérez Argüello et al.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61222470
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/
Photo credit to Getty Images
This is an interesting take on Musk’s purchase of Twitter. It is pretty shocking how involved social media has become in circulating public opinion and influencing political outcomes.
This is an interesting piece! I think you’re very right, that there is heavy weight upon the shoulders of social media when it comes to shaping minds and opinions in the public sphere, and the actions of moguls like Musk or Zuckerberg have potentially unknown impacts upon the way information is accessed and consumed. While I agree with much of what you said, I also think it is important to remember the positive aspects of social media: it has been a huge connecting force in social movements, allowing people to access information that would have otherwise been much harder to them to find. It allows people to connect with people they would not have otherwise connected with, and in many ways can be a very unifying and diversifying force in the world. There are dangers and concerns, of course, and there are always going to be nastier parts of the internet, but Twitter especially has played significant roles in getting information out about so many things, and allowing people to educate themselves in digestible bits. It is just a matter of ensuring the right information is available, which, as you state, is so incredibly difficult.
Hi Connor,
You raise a very interesting issue in this article and give a comprehensive picture of the problems that social media is currently causing and the solutions that Elon Musk is proposing.
What makes me sceptical is that absolute freedom of speech is always a false proposition as long as the problem of grey areas still exists and Musk’s commitment to the issue is not trustworthy. Moreover, the end of the platform’s pseudonymity seems to run counter to the initial expectations of the internet. You are right, such a measure could undoubtedly result in an invasion of personal privacy.
The article is very interesting in the structure it takes, as it goes over the current state of Twitter and the issues that it is currently facing with misinformation, versus the potential issues that come with the solution that is currently being proposed by Elon Musk. In addition, the article does not only represent a particular side in its analysis of what the acquisition means and the direction it should take, rather it analyzes what the implications of the direction that could be taken and what the potential benefits or consequences entail. The discussion revolving around the issue of fake accounts through the use of bots and resolving the issue by authenticating identities on the platform, is a solution which is the most interesting for both its result and political implications. On one hand it would solve certain security issues and intervene as foreign counterintelligence evolves into influencing these open platforms and targeting political spaces. However on this matter, whether our freedom is granted at the cost of a subscription and government authentication, is also something that becomes a dangerous slippery slope and philosophical dilemma to the concept that social media itself actually is and the role of a surveillance state. Not to say that this is the intention, rather just an observation on possible outcomes. It can also change the course for not only what social media has been, but what it continues to be in the legal sense of whether we are treating this as a right or a commodity that people utilize in exchange for money. On the flip side, one core concept that is removed in the favor of retaining and preserving rights, is the removal of the predatory advertisement system which social media currently has. When you conclude your article, it leaves a very important question, which is that though Musk has outlined some form of general thesis to summarize his intentions and a plan of action to resolve the issues that Twitter is currently facing. Being that the deal just occurred, this will be something to really look under the microscope as time comes, and not just for Mr. Musk but for governments’ responses to the platform changes as well.