What does Musk's acquisition of Twitter mean?

"Disclosing Twitter's algorithmic secrets may serve the public interest in a number of ways."

(Netmap, invasion and deletion)

Could Elon Musk’s Takeover of Twitter Have a Silver Lining?

What does Musk's acquisition of Twitter mean?

Translator: Shum Junyi

If you believe Elon Musk, the future of civilization may depend on his acquisition of Twitter. The world's richest man is pouring his income from Tesla, SpaceX and other high-tech businesses into his favorite social media platform for billions of dollars more than it's worth because he says he wants to maximize free speech.

Musk's need for what he called a platform of "maximum trust and broad inclusion" in a recent TED interview hinges on his personal definition, which he summed up as: "People you don't like are allowed to say something you don't like, and if that's the case, then we have freedom of speech." ”

The problem with this formulation is that it masks organized and coordinated disinformation and propaganda, local sexual harassment and widespread hate speech that can drown out and suppress other speech. Women, minorities and marginalized voices are unlikely to find that "Musk's version of free speech" makes sense when influential accounts, trolls and botnets use "Musk's definition" to prove their power. His oversimplification also refutes bipartisan support in the United States that "social media companies mitigate online misinformation through better content moderation."

One has to question whether Musk is thinking about the widespread online harassment that many of his users have experienced, or rather, the platforming of Donald Trump in the wake of the January 6, 2021 riots, and the complaints of conservatives with social media censorship. In fact, a multinational study found that Twitter's algorithm amplifies the political right, not the left.

That's why Musk mused about the hope of increasing public confidence in Twitter by opening up his "black box algorithm," which could at least alleviate some legitimate concerns that another Silicon Valley billionaire owns a major part of the public sphere.

Exposing Twitter's algorithmic secrets can serve the public interest in a variety of ways. First, researchers will be able to analyze the algorithmic dimensions of information manipulation and harassment while exploring how "different design choices and data" interact with these algorithms. Twitter is already one of the most researched platforms in the world because it has an open API, while Facebook has shut down research projects and retaliated against researchers.

Second, making Twitter open source allows people to develop their own plugins, filters, and add-ons to customize a website, just like Wordpress, which is one of the most popular and versatile website platforms in the world. This could lead to experimentation with different types of social media logic and experiences, laying the groundwork for decentralized social networking standards — one that can build a variety of experiences and applications.

Because, frankly, most people don't want to hang out in the sinkholes of unaudited Twitter, just like they don't want to go to public squares where people yell and throw things at them.

Musk called Twitter a de facto public town square, and he had a point. Almost anyone can sign up and tweet. Twitter is the preferred platform for the world's political elite and journalists. That's probably why Musk complained that top influencers like Barack Obama and Lady Gaga were using Twitter to lag.

But the swaths of what is seen as the public domain are already owned by private, wealthy (and often white) guys. Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post and Amazon. Mark Zuckerberg has bigger, more lucrative Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, which owns Fox News.

But Musk — the world's richest man — is taking over Twitter as government demands for data removal grow, new data and personnel localization laws have been dubbed hostage-taking by critics, and a slew of emerging regulations around the world that require internet platforms to quickly remove problematic content or face liability and fines.

Although Musk describes himself as an "absolutist of free speech," he said Twitter should "conform" to state legislation on speech. Speech legislation in most countries is more restrictive than in the United States and does not provide Section 230 protections against intermediary liability.

To date, at least 24 countries have implemented new policies governing how platforms should handle content, from restricting how platforms can review posts and accounts (as in Brazil) to removing and imposing fines on "illegal" content (as in Russia). New social media laws in India and Pakistan require platforms to remove illegal content and require company representatives to hold them criminally liable for compliance. As a result, Musk needs to work on "whether to comply with domestic laws in countries that restrict free speech," or risk the government shutting down the platform or even imprisoning its employees. This is a real risk for countries such as Russia, Turkey and Vietnam, which have strict new localization laws in place to give them greater influence over global technology platforms.

Eventually, Musk will have to figure out how to tune some of the content so that Twitter remains available in many countries, keeps his employees safe, and enables the platform to continue to serve these demographics. Or maybe he'll use his vast wealth to resist this pressure, refuse to comply with restrictive speech laws, and turn Twitter into a truly global public square.