Dear Mr Musk,
You are, undoubtedly, a genius. In addition, unlike the cliché, you are both appreciated in your own time and have reaped huge financial rewards – in a magnitude that is unfathomable for the overwhelming majority of your non-unionised workers. But even the sharpest minds, the greatest of geniuses, may fall short in some or other area of human knowledge. And most often, that area is a knowledge of humans.
Below, some concerns brought on by your recent letter to advertisers, posted on Twitter — on the eve of (at last, it seems) your acquisition of the social media platform.
1. You acquired Twitter, you say, “because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence”. This is an unexceptionable thought. Yet, study after study and whistleblowers galore – from across social media companies – give a strong indication that screen time is maximised when people are drawn in. It seems also that negativity thrives on Twitter, where a cutting remark and even abuse seem to garner more traction than genuine debate. Why, you yourself have called a rescue diver “pedo guy”, and been in “feuds” with rapper Eliza Banks and Roberto Escobar. I’m sure, then, you have a solution to the problem of balancing free speech (the cost of which can, of course, be public stupidity) and healthy debate. Suffice to say, this titration can be far more intricate than even the subtlest of machines.
2. Not every offensive statement is violent, of course. But violence can be verbal. Your earlier statements to the effect that banning Donald Trump from Twitter was a bad decision, betraying a political bias, are well taken. But what about rape threats? What about criminal behaviour like, say, posting revenge porn? There are no easy answers to these questions. As any good editor will tell you, striking out the unprintable and correcting errors is not always a curb on speech. And make no mistake, you’re in the publishing game now.
3. To be fair, in your short letter, you do say that Twitter “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape” and it must follow “the law of the land”. Which land? As you will soon find out, some countries may have a lesser tolerance than others about what gets said in the “digital public square”. Will you act at governments’ directions, or protect the free speech of people from countries where you do not reside? Will things that matter to the “future of civilisation” – such as free speech – outweigh the fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders?
4. The target audience for your letter is advertisers, the companies that will eventually make up for the billions of dollars you have paid for Twitter (forgive the scepticism about your not wanting to make money). And not all advertisers may share your high-minded principles. Perhaps, unlike your competitors, you will be able to weed out what is harmful and inappropriate. But, as you well know, in the US, money is a form of free speech – a contradiction, perhaps, in a democracy where all citizens should have an equal voice. Compared to taking on vested interests, including from your adopted country, in the name of free speech may be tougher even than terraforming Mars.
5. Finally, sir, a fear that many around the world have expressed. Social media today wields an enormous amount of power. With one purchase, you have acquired more influence than almost any traditional media mogul. In the past, there has been a cloud around your actions on Twitter and even accusations that you have manipulated stock prices through your tweets. Accusations are just that. But for any political system to work – and a platform that allows or disallows people to have a voice is political in its essence – the only workable solution is a system of checks and balances. With you, we have a one-man show.
You have achieved enormous, innovative things at Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company and in ways and places too many to elaborate on here. But please, as you put yourself in a position to manage the trajectory of public conversation, debate and disagreement, don’t just be a CEO. By being just that when it comes to free speech and social harm, your competitors and predecessors have already done quite a bit of damage.
