Musk's Twitter business model idea: ignoring the right to free speech and trying to charge the media
By Mike Masnick
While everyone is trying to decipher what exactly Elon Musk-owned Twitter will look like, in his introduction to Wall Street banks to get the financing they need to close the deal, he said the deal would be profitable thanks to some of his new business model ideas. Now, it's clear that these are all speculations, and my guess is that he didn't think deeply about these issues (like he didn't think about the challenges of content moderation, even though he was sure he could fix it). But at least some banks bought the deal based on the more powerful Twitter business Musk promised, so we need to pay attention to his ideas. Like this, well, under the First Amendment, that's practically impossible.
Musk told the bank that he also plans to develop features to increase business revenue, including new ways to make money with tweets containing important information or virality, the sources said.
The ideas he came up with included charging a fee when a third-party website wanted to quote or embed tweets from verified individuals or organizations.
So, I don't want to pour cold water on anyone who recognizes Musk's innovative business acumen, but... Well...... It seems at least a little ironic that he has been clamoring for "free speech" for the past month and allowing anything the law allows... And now he wants to charge the company that quoted a tweet.
Yes, so, thanks to the First Amendment (which he claims to support so much), he's unlikely to succeed in doing so. Under copyright law, quoting a tweet in almost every damn case (we'll be dealing with embedding soon) is fair use. And, a key reason for our fair use in copyright law... It's the First Amendment that requires this, otherwise copyright law would stifle free speech that Musk claims to love very much.
In Eldred v. Ashcroft, a constitutionally important case concerning the extension of the term of copyright (if a wrong decision), Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly spoke of fair use as a "safeguard" in copyright law to ensure that copyright law could exist under the First Amendment, even though it might be used to suppress speech. The crux of the argument is that because allowing people to do things like citing a 240-character explosion is fair use, there are no serious concerns about copyright silence speech. This is often raised in the context of referencing fair use as a necessary safety valve for copyright to make it compatible with the First Amendment.
Given Musk's claim that (incorrectly, but really, anyway) free speech laws represent "the will of the people" and that his apparent big business model innovation is requiring media outlets to pay for citing tweets, this violates our fair use rights, which are necessary under the First Amendment... Well, it seems that his biggest business model idea to date is trying to ignore the First Amendment rights of people who want to quote tweets.
Good luck!
Plus, under Twitter's current terms of service, users hold any copyright interest in their own Tweets. Twitter holds a license for it, but that doesn't allow Twitter as an entity to file a copyright claim against any media outlet that first quoted the tweet. The only way to do that is, it completely changes the terms, asking all users to transfer their copyright to Twitter, well, good luck too!
Of course, the report says that if someone "wants to quote or embed a verified individual's tweet" and can charge a fee, the company can certainly build some complex systems that try to get people to pay for embedding, but this will (a) be fucking annoying to most other people, and (b) only cause everyone to take screenshots, not embeddings, which will be much less useful for Twitter in the long run because it will prompt more people to interact with Twitter. And, fair use and (I feel I have to remind you) the First Amendment protects all screenshots and citations. Freedom of speech, ftw!
That's not yet involved in the idea that Twitter might now effectively sell its popular tweets to websites. I mean, if this program continues (and somehow overcomes all the other hurdles), I think the company is going to need to cut into its users in transactions and build some sort of "Every time the New York Times embeds your tweet, they pay us $5 and we'll give you back $3 of that" or something like that. Of course, maybe this will get some Twitter users excited because they can get paid for their own Tweets (again, assuming any third-party site ignores its fair use/First Amendment rights and simply quotes or screenshots and chooses to pay).
However, it can also create complexity for the entire world. First, Twitter needed to build a whole new way of operating to manage all of this. Musk also promised in those documents that he plans to reduce Twitter's headcount, but he will at least need to staff himself to manage payments and expenses for Twitter users. But he's Musk, so I guess the system will run on Dogecoin's blockchain and payments will happen automatically. Of course, if you like this sort of thing, maybe you can see how it actually works.
But, now, we get to the next question: when you add money (or even money based on cute Dogecoin) on a platform that people usually do for free, the incentive mechanism changes. Oh, kids, they've changed. Suddenly, you'll come across a large number of scammers who are trying to abuse the system and make Dogecoin holders rich. I thought maybe this needs to be expressed in the form of meme...
Given how often cryptocurrency scammers track him and try to deceive his fans, Musk should know this better than anyone. Introducing actual funds (even meme-type tokens) into the mix will lead to a lot of scams. If the company has a... What is it called... Oh yes, trusting and security people to help think about these issues can probably help.
I never hit anyone for trying creative business model ideas. I fully support Twitter's attempt at a non-advertising business model, which, as Musk suggests, is part of his focus. This actually seems like a good idea. However, it's a bit strange when the premise of the whole deal is to bring more "free speech" to the site... When he tried to persuade banks to back him, his first business model proposal was to disregard other people's right to free speech and try to force them to pay.
Musk proposes to charge governments and businesses a "small fee" for using Twitter.
Musk: Twitter will always offer free services to casual users
Musk's acquisition of Twitter isn't yet finalized, but the world's richest man is busy advising on potential changes to the platform. What is his latest advice? Charge businesses and governments for Twitter usage.
Musk tweeted: "Ultimately, the downfall of Masonics was to give away their stone services in vain. "Twitter is always free for the average user, but there may be a little fee for business/government users."
As Musk often does, the plan doesn't have any promises: This guy is just tweeting. But it does fit in with what we've heard before about Musk's thinking about the platform. Reuters reported last month that while pitching his acquisition plans to banks, Musk suggested he charge media companies for quoting or embedding tweets. The logic in each case is simple. Twitter is currently free, and people need this product, so why not charge for it?
Well, because these ideas seem obvious, but they also bring a lot of potential problems. In the case of a) quoting or b) charging for embedding Tweets, a) will be the opposite of the First Amendment (which doesn't seem good if you're promoting free speech), and b) will introduce various administrative difficulties (such as Musk wanting to reduce twitter's headcount).
In contrast, getting governments and businesses to pay for Twitter is more straightforward, but it's still tricky to implement. For example, how big does a company have to be for you to charge it for using Twitter? For example, you might not want the Coca-Cola Company and your local brewery to pay the same fees. But if not, how do you tell the difference? Do you adjust your charges based on the number of followers (which may not reflect the size of the company), or do you adjust the charges based on revenue (which needs to be verified), or something else entirely different? How much do you charge, even for tiered systems? Asking too much, you push people away – reducing the network effects that give social media a lot of value in the first place. Too little, it won't have any effect on your income. And so on, and so on. These problems are not insoluble, but they are not simple at all.
In any case, all of this is vague speculation: We just don't know what Musk intends to do with Twitter at the moment. But this in itself is very informative, because resigned to fate is obviously the way the world's richest man works. A recent New York Times article explored how Musk defied organized business plans in running the company in favor of acting intuitively (you can't say he hasn't been successful so far). It's a matter of course to post the idea of changing Twitter: Let's see what happens next.
Musk plans to push Twitter back within a few years after it buys it
The Tesla CEO has been discussing the issue of participating in the deal with investors, including private equity firms
Elon Musk has agreed to put Twitter Inc. Being privatized in a $44 billion deal, he told potential investors he could restore the social media company to public ownership again in just a few years.
According to people familiar with the matter, Musk said he plans to make an initial public offering in just three years after the acquisition of Twitter. The deal is expected to close later this year, but subject to conditions including Approval from Twitter shareholders and regulators, the company said.
Musk has recently been talking to investors such as private equity firms, which could help lower the $21 billion he plans to launch to help it pay for the deal. The rest of the money comes from loans. The Wall Street Journal reported that one company considering participation was Apollo Global Management.
Private equity firms typically take companies private with the aim of fixing them in the spotlight and then going public again over a period of five years or so. Musk said he plans to do something similar, which helps reassure potential investors that he will quickly work to improve Twitter's business operations and profitability.
He didn't give much detail about his specific plans for the company, saying only that he wanted the company to be less strict when it came to content moderation. At one point, he said he didn't care if he could make money from trading.
Although Musk is the richest man in the world, raising funds to complete the deal will not be easy. Once he managed to do so, the resistance expected by Twitter eased, and the two sides quickly agreed to close the deal at the price he had originally offered for $54.20 per share.
The British parliament invited Musk, who likes Twitter, to talk about "verifying all humanity."
The British parliament has invited Elon Musk to "discuss the future of Twitter" because we live in a crazy time.
If Musk agrees to speak to lawmakers on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) Committee, even online — he would go further than Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who sidestepped a statement to testify against him after the Cambridge Analytica data misuse scandal in 2018.
Unlike Zuckerberg, who is seeking to sidestep scrutiny of exactly how Facebook allows a company that its own employees call "shoddy" to suck the data of millions of users without their knowledge or consent, Musk has no apparent reason to avoid small talk with some "respected members" of the British parliament other than his general aversion to government agencies.
He may also be (currently) busy dealing with the owners of NFTs without noticing or caring about the "invitation to speak" issued to parliamentarians in countries on the other side of the Atlantic.
But he should perhaps accept the invitation — because if he succeeds in his task of owning Twitter, that's a sign of the future.
As we have previously reported, there are a growing number of international regulations that have been and/or are about to be applied to this speech platform. Therefore, if Musk becomes the owner of Twitter, he will be responsible for the decision that could lead to the company being fined hefty for failing to comply with regional/per-market rules regarding content that such platforms can legally disseminate.
In the case of upcoming online safety legislation in the UK, the rules could even lead to local executives jailed for failed compliance.
In an invitation letter to Musk that the DCMS Committee made public today, it wrote that it was particularly interested in his proposal to "verify all humanity."
Council Chairman and MP Julian Knight wrote: "My committee has taken note of your proposal to take over Twitter, and we are interested in the developments you have proposed. "In particular, you intend to launch verification for all users, which echoes our call to the UK government as part of the proposed legislation which we hope will restore the UK public's trust in the digital platform."
Knight went on to note that the Commission's 2020 report on misinformation during the COVID-19 "information pandemic" called for "greater transparency in bots and automated and spam accounts" and referred to its recent report on the Online Safety Act — which, as he puts it, "discusses how to balance civil liberties such as freedom of expression with the need to address harmful, pervasive online child sexual exploitation and abuse."
"So I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to speak before our committee to discuss your proposal in more depth," Knight went on to say, before suggesting that Musk use the public platform of the British parliament to mock his critics (uh...). Be careful with your wishes! He wrote: "I know you have expressed a desire for critics to stay on Twitter, which may provide an opportunity to address any criticism publicly." "
Meanwhile, critics of the UK government's online safety bill have long feared that the government may be inclined to limit the anonymity of social media – purporting to stop taunting and abuse on online platforms.
However, the U.S. government unveiled a compromise earlier this year that requires the largest platforms to provide users with tools to limit their exposure to (potentially harmful) but technically legitimate content, provide them with ways to verify their identity, and control who can interact with them on the service (for example, by opting to receive only DMs and responses from verified accounts).
"Platforms have a responsibility to decide which method to use to fulfill this authentication obligation, but they must give users the option to opt in or out," DCMS wrote in February, adding partial certification to what critics have called the "kitchen sink."
If the UK government insists on doing so, the UK will avoid making controversial full verification requests for platforms such as Twitter – similar to Musk's idea of "verifying all humans" – although the Online Safety Act is still under parliamentary scrutiny, so there could be further amendments before becoming law. (At least the DCMS committee seems keen on more certification...) ）。
A lot of things could still happen to change the details of the upcoming legislation. But curiously, the new ownership of a major platform like Twitter could reset the speech wheel on social media in a more radical direction than the U.K. government has proposed — that is, if Musk really intends to force all Twitter account holders to authenticate.
If he really intends to do so, it could mean the worst of all the world: Musk's misconceptions of intervening through chilling rhetoric, his lack of concern for privacy and the relative risk of users being forced to trust third parties (at best) to protect their identities, coupled with the increasing restrictions imposed on speech platforms by states and political institutions around the world, some (technically) democratic, others (completely) authoritarian, who tend to adopt a narrower view of what is legitimate online expression.