A good friend once asked, “Why do you do it?” Specifically, why do I jot down these ideas and post them online? I make no money from presenting unconventional ways to reason through these situations. Honestly, I don’t know the size of my readership, nor do I really care in many ways. I write these wacky ideas down because they’re therapeutic, and they help me navigate through these complex situations.
I value my ability to jot down these ideas and express them without fear of censorship (or in some cases, incarceration). Here in the United States, First Amendment grants you this freedom to express ideas. However, with that freedom comes the question, “Can my freedom to express my ideas, impinge on your rights?” For instance, does a bully’s freedom to express themselves (by calling me names as a child) outweigh my rights to live my life free of conflict?
As Elon Musk acquired Twitter, it filled me with a cautious skepticism about its future viability as an equitable discussion platform. He claims to be a free speech absolutist. I both doubted and hoped that he would make good on his ideals of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, he confirmed my suspicions and dashed my hopes.
The new Twitter
What changed? Upon enabling formerly banned accounts, post have grown progressively more hateful. Since Musk claims to be a free speech absolutist (though his actions shed light on the hypocrisy), Twitter effectively stopped moderating content. This affected both hate speech and misinformation; both ran rampant. Some members tested the waters and found that no limitations existed, or astonishingly few. Some argued that we should keep it this way and suggested:
- The truth will float to the top.
- Simply block the abusive people.
- Why not Twitter?
Let’s ponder through these rationalizations.
The truth will float to the top
Except that it doesn’t. You respond with evidence that disproves the original post. That may work with some members, but many will implicitly want to believe in a story that aligns with their echo chamber. Conversely, people will implicitly disbelieve posts that have been substantiated if it doesn’t align with their perception of the world.
Someone posted the rumor that a solicited gay prostitute attacked Paul Pelosi. More recently, someone claimed that a forced Covid vaccination caused Jamie Foxx’s hospitalization. Both were unsubstantiated at first and have since been debunked. Unfortunately, those stories cannot be unheard. For days, people assumed that these were truthful; merely having them posted inflicts damage.
If Twitter moderates this content, it will block (or tag) an occasional accurate post as misinformation when it’s not. However, it also means that what is posted (and subsequently read) is generally credible. You may not necessarily like the post, and naturally it may be biased to some degree, but generally it’s reporting facts. The alternative (its current state) is that anyone may post anything, like “Elvis alive and interviewed in the Today Show”, and it is indistinguishable from legitimate, factual posts.
Given these options:
- Twitter moderates posts; they block (or tag) garbage posts. You miss some details, but what you do read is credible.
- Twitter moderates nothing; anyone can post garbage. Therefore, nothing is credible.
While the first option above is certainly not perfect, it’s still substantially better than the second.
Simply block the abusive people
Imagine that you receive a spam e-mail message; you block that particular sender. Do you stop getting spam? No. In fact, blocking one particular sender (unless it’s a disgruntled ex) is a practice in futility. The only sane way to manage spam is to enable spam filtering on that account. In other words, the only reasonable way to manage your e-mail messages is a form of content moderation.
In the same light, some suggest that all we need to do is to block the offending people, one at a time. If it doesn’t work for spam, why naïvely suggest this works for Twitter and posts? There are literally hundreds of millions of active Twitter users, how long does it take to block out the haters? Haters bullied Kelly Marie Tran off social media for daring to be a woman of color in the Star Wars Universe. Ashley Judd has a great TED Talk about online misogyny; imagine needing to pay someone to scrub your social media feed. Talk to Tyler Clementi about freedom of speech, except that he was literally humiliated to death by a Tweet.
With a few taps of the fingers, we sling more venom that we would never do in person, yet we do it online for sport. Monica Lewinsky speaks passionately and eloquently on her phenomenal TED Talk about online bullying; I get choked up every time I watch it.
To recommend that ‘blocking abusive people’ will address the problem is to suggest putting screen doors on a submarine. The suggestion is outlandishly absurd and would only be made by someone who lacks context.
Why not Twitter?
Why it must be Twitter for freedom of speech. Technology-wise a platform like Twitter is pretty simple; you can easily duplicate it. In fact, platforms like Truth Social and Parler have done precisely this. However, they have failed as a discussion platform because they cater to conservative ideas with no moderation (or absurdly little). Existing conservative members shut down anyone with legitimate dissenting opinions. They consequently discourage the more left-leaning voices from contributing to that platform. Much like the dating app The Right Stuff, which failed for being a sausage fest, you can’t have a discussion platform when only one side shows up.
Twitter is, in most ways, the best existing platform for open discussion. Musk acquired a platform with an existing diverse user base; this is far easier than establishing a new platform and convincing a diverse population to participate. That’s the reason why he paid $44 billion for it; you can develop the technology for far less. Furthermore, he paid that price tag in order to hijack the platform and take these users hostage. He banked on the idea that his subsequent changes, under the guise of ‘free speech absolutism’, would not drive people away. He looked to establish a free speech Thunderdome.
However, two compelling reasons keep Twitter from functioning in this open ideas Thunderdome model that Musk envisions. Naturally, he has 44 billion reasons why he can do with it as he wants. However, there are reasons why it won’t work.
Don’t shit where you eat
First, Twitter has become its own mini-internet platform. Remember when most online users were on AOL? Television ads recited the words, “AOL Keyword…” Most companies who want to be successful have a website, and most companies with a website have a Twitter presence. I’ve reached out to companies on their websites for support and have been ignored, yet they responded through Twitter. Companies like Lego, Doordash, Imdb, and most others have a reference to their Twitter page prominently displayed on their website. It has become an online mall of sorts for the brands and products we know and love.
There’s a blunt expression that we use, “Don’t shit where you eat.” If Lego opens a store in a mall that has since been acquired and subsequently turned into the Thunderdome, why wouldn’t they simply close the store and move it? Similarly, why would Lego point you to a platform with increasingly hateful speech and vitriol about their own brand? It’s just bad business. Twitter cannot function as an unmoderated discussion platform and a destination for brand recognition. You can’t do both; pick one.
The Mass Exodus
Second, Twitter continues to slide into allowing more hateful language and misinformation. Consequently, this will drive more people away, the very people it needs to be a viable discussion platform. Long ago, I read a thread that pronounced Monica Lewinsky the Queen of Twitter. Sadly, she posts far less frequently; she has incredible compassion and wit. Many have left; the exodus is not limited to her. Social media has intimidated Kelly Marie Tran and Ashley Judd (literally and figuratively) off their platforms. Tyler Clementi’s roommate humiliated him to death on Twitter. This all occurred before Musk took over, and it grows progressively worse. While no social media company protects LGBTQ users well, only Twitter actually worsened.
If you spent $44 billion to acquire a platform with an existing user base. You literally have a vested interest in keeping them on the platform. To continue to make policy changes that make it more hostile for them is just bad business.
Behind Musk’s intentions
I don’t pretend to understand Elon Musk’s intentions for the platform. As portrayed above, it makes little sense to me. As a Twitter user, if I were to follow his rationalizations, he makes colossally bad decisions incompatible with this declared intentions. I believe him to be a better businessman than this.
However, this reminds me of the 1980’s movie, Can’t Buy Me Love. The protagonist, Ronald Miller, played by Patrick Demsey, pays the most popular girl in school $1000 to pretend to be his girlfriend in order to gain popularity; I suspect that this is closer to the truth with Musk.
Elon Musk paid a colossal amount of money for a megaphone for his inconsistent, half-baked, often hateful ideas… hoping that this would buy him legitimacy and respect. He’s a modern-day Ronald Miller. Once you see it, you’ll understand how profoundly sad this is. Musk may be a savvy businessman, but his ego dwarfs his business acumen.