Why Musk buying Twitter is bad news for us all

At time of writing, it's currently being widely reported that Twitter are preparing to accept Elon Musk's offer to purchase the company for a reported $43 billion.

Twitter's history has hardly been plain sailing – struggling to turn a profit, mired in scandals (mostly of its users, rather than the platform itself) and struggling to gain the kind of userbase that would launch it into the same stratosphere as Facebook, Instagram or TikTok.

Nonetheless, the micro-blogging platform has had a profound impact on our society. Even taking Donald Trump's usage of the platform alone, it has shaped international relations and political agendas across the globe. It was credited as having a fundamental role in the Arab Spring – a standpoint now being contested – and is now a go-to for breaking news across the planet. It has also – and perhaps most importantly – given a voice to those otherwise disenfranchised and isolated. The ability to find those who share your interests far surpasses Facebook and other platforms. It has also allowed for surprisingly meaningful connection.

From a personal perspective, Twitter has integral to the success of United For Newcastle, a change-focused Newcastle United fan group in the early 2010s.

The platform has always tried to adopt a light-touch to moderation, whilst simultaenously sticking to its core principles. When those principles were violated, for example in the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol Riots, accounts of the rich and famous were permanently suspended.

The pushback from right-wing, MAGA, WWG1WGA types was swift. Suddenly, the likes of Parler appeared in the public lexicon, and debates about Twitter stifling freedom of speech exploded.

The core false equivalence in all of these debates is very straightforward. Freedom is speech is not synomymous with immunity from criticism or prosecution in the event of inciting a riot or hate speech. The right-wing have steadily been attempting to change what is societally acceptable. Whether it's justifying the indiscriminate extradition of asylum seekers out of the UK to Rwanda, or making it politically toxic to stand up to political legislation such as the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida,

Let's call a spade a spade: it's populism appealing to the lowest common denominator. It requires a pre-existing level of prejudice and absence of basic understanding to believe that being taught that homosexuality exists will somehow transform children en-masse to artifically change their sexual orientation. Likewise, the cognitive dissonance required to ignore all evidence that migrants generally have a positive effect on the UK economy and instead choose to believe that someone is not worthy of a place in the magnificent United Kingdom because they look different, sound different, or simply come from abroad is shocking.

Regardless, the messaging that you can blame someone else for your hardships – regardless of whether it's true or not – is a very successful line of communication. It worked for Nazi propagandists, it worked from Donald Trump and it worked during the Brexit campaign. It successfully repoints attention away from the corruption of those in power, and instead blames the little guy. And time and time again the populance falls for it, hook line and sinker.

That is precisely why the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk must be viewed as a bad thing for genuine freedom of speech. A few years ago I read Hatching Twitter, and was struck by the almost accidental nature of Twitter's foundation. The founding team had no idea how effective and successful (although not financially) it would become, but they very quickly realised the place that Twitter held in society and that there was a certain amount of responsibility that came with that.

Elon Musk does not believe in responsibility. He has spread misinformation throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and almost certainly artifically manipulated the prices of cryptocurrencies using Tesla to do so.

In fact, he has all the hallmarks of the stereotypical evil businessman in numerous science fiction stories, hiding behind the auspices of non-profit research companies designed to better humanity.

There are of course plenty of good things that Musk has accomplished in the field of battery technology and most notably Space X. Quite where the International Space Station would be today without Musk's private spacefleet is an interesting question.

But behind that, he seems remarkably immune from criticism. His Starlink satellite network has clouded the skies above Earth, barely attracting any questions. He has publically denounced U.S. socialist Senator Bernie Sanders on Twitter and has predictably jumped on the right-wing's favourite bandwagon, "wokeness". In a December 2021 interview, he stated that "wokeness is divise, exclusionary, and hateful."

Musk carries the hallmarks of a man who revels in casting out contradictory viewpoints. He made political donations to both the Democrats and the Republicans. He condemned the invasion of the Ukraine, yet refused to block Starlink access to the Russian propaganda machine. He repeatedly downplayed the COVID-19 pandemic, yet offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build.

In fact, it's noteworthy that when internet access was threatened in the Ukraine, Starlink was repositioned to provide support. Great news, I hear you say. Except it only happened after the Ukraine directly tweeted Musk, asking him to do so. After which, we has happy to take the fanfare and plaudits. It's the trademark straight out of the narcisstic playbook: the need to receive the credit for a charitable, humanitarian act rather than doing it for genuine good.

In this, he shares a certain talent for juxtapositioning with Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Trump was a card-holding Democrat who previously contempt for the Republicans who ended up as a Republican President. Johnson's flip-flopping on issues is too lengthy to even begin to document.

What do these three people also, therefore, have in common? A gargantuan sense of self-interest. Musk's is well-known, with his initial bid for Twitter being deemed by some to be a publicity stunt. He has been very successful at weighing in on almost every topic – much as Trump and Johnson do – and making provocative statements designed to draw attention and controversy. One thing is certain: all are designed to increase the net worth and prospects of Elon Musk.

That is why his takeover of Twitter should be viewed with both scepticism and reticence. The optimist in me hopes – much as I did before Trump's inauguration or Johnson's appointment as UK PM – that Musk simply said these things for attention. He doesn't really believe that "wokeness" is hateful. He can't really believe that COVID-19 is overblown. Maybe he will really improve Twitter.

Once bitten, twice shy, thrice fearful.

Twitter has suffered with many challenges through its existence, perhaps none more noted than its inability to turn a meaningful profit. There is no doubt that in comparison to other tech giants like Meta, Apple or Google it barely registers on the revenue scales. True, it has been steadily ramping up its income generation in recent quarters, but Facebook still generated $28bn in Q1 2022 versus Twitter's £1.6bn.

Perhaps Musk sees a huge opportunity to create revenue, but I doubt that's what's really going on. He doesn't really need the money. Continuing a trend of increased revenue for Twitter doesn't really fit the modus operandi of the tech mogul where he does something truly remarkable.

Rather, Twitter is headed in a direction of which perhaps Musk is not a fan. It is one of the primary places where journalists and private citizens can scrutinise corruption and those in power. It stood up to President Trump at a time when it really needed to. Musk himself has been landed in hot water for tweets he made on the platform, designed perhaps to further his prospects.

If Musk can take Twitter and deregulate it, loosen the terms and conditions and effectively begin to transform it into a 4chan-style cesspit, then he may well be able to increase revenue. He can loosen standards on advertising, revel in the attention brought by controversy through reinstating Trump's account and allowing the site to stoke the flames with armies of bot accounts.

Musk likes his companies to project an image of a brighter future for humanity. Whether it is a vision he truly believes in is difficult to know. Perhaps a brighter future for humanity is a "would-be-nice" in the mind the entrepreneur, but not at the expense of a brighter future for Elon Musk.