The outright purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk for $44 billion, after a series of controversies and conflicting reports — including of a “poison pill” defence by the company’s board — is certain to shake up the tech industry, the digital public sphere and global markets. Given his position as a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist”, and the sheer size of the deal, the buyout also raises fundamental questions.
First, should one person, no matter how accomplished, wealthy or well-meaning, have disproportionate control over the global public conversation? Oversight is not just by governments and legislation, but the checks imposed by the fiduciary responsibility placed on publicly-traded companies. In the aftermath of the purchase, for example, Tesla’s market capitalisation was wiped out by about $126 billion. This sharp fall is at least in part due to concerns that Musk may sell stock in his flagship company to finance the buyout, as well as the fear that his attention will be occupied by Twitter — the platform’s influence far outweighs its profitability. Second, Musk has been accused in the past of using Twitter and social media to further his companies’ financial interests. Without oversight, his ability to manipulate the debate and markets for personal and financial ends only increases. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Musk’s foreseeable plans for Twitter — reducing content moderation, in particular — frame the contours of a future conflict with national governments that are becoming more rigorous in their efforts to regulate social media.
Already, a spokesperson of the UK government has said that Twitter will have to comply with the Online Safety Bill once it becomes law. The European Union’s commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton, tweeted that Musk and Twitter must comply with the Digital Services Act. In India, the government has often been at loggerheads with companies over taking down posts and tweets under Section 69(A) of the IT Act. Musk’s response to the demand for oversight was to tweet: “The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all.” It is no one’s case that governments have been the best protectors of free speech, or that they have always been reasonable in their imposition of “reasonable restrictions”. Yet, in democracies, there is a system of checks and balances, and legitimacy of law. Musk’s Twitter — a for-profit company, with no one to answer to but him – has none of those boundaries or restraints. That could amount to not absolutely free speech, but an unencumbered entitlement. The onus is on the Musk-owned Twitter to alleviate these apprehensions.
This editorial first appeared in the print edition on April 28, 2022 under the title ‘Musk’s Twitter’.
