Elon Musk’s Twitter vision is problematic – but also an opportunity iOS 16.1 is here – these innovations are available for the iPhone (and for the iPad)

The social relevance of the process is simply apparent from how many politicians, journalists, economists and celebrities around the world have responded. Elon Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of social media platform Twitter is the biggest political issue of the year, at least in the digital world. From congratulations to swearing, everything is included.

Euphoric benefactors include Putin’s accomplice Dmitry Medvedev and ex-President Donald Trump, who has been blocked on Twitter. Top AfD politicians also think the purchase of Musk is justified. Critics, on the other hand, see this as a threat to the stability of democracies. Among them is the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. The German federal government now also wants to make its presence on Twitter dependent on the developments under the new Twitter owner Elon Musk.

Yes, the richest man in the world now owns one of the most powerful media in the world. But he’s not the only billionaire to own a media platform. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the influential Washington Post newspaper. Mark Zuckerberg owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

So what’s the big problem with Musk and Twitter?

Twitter is a participatory medium of power. News travels there faster than on any other platform, and more importantly, it creates political spins. Tomorrow’s opinions are created there in real time.

Twitter is more than just a medium. Twitter is a power tool with many millions of users. And Elon Musk has more influence than a normal human being. He is a powerful billionaire who claims to have a political agenda. An agenda that should lead to a better, but also unspecified, social situation.

“I bought Twitter because having a common digital forum is important for the future of our civilization,” Musk wrote this week in an open letter to Twitter advertisers. The service should be a place where “a wide range of opinions can be discussed in a healthy way without escalating into violence”.

A noble intention. Because if that really works, Twitter could help solve one of the most pressing problems of our time with social and political divisions in society.

But Elon Musk also creates a big problem with it. For many, he raised an expectation: everyone should be able to say anything on Twitter. That sounds pretty good, like free beer for democracy.

He will not be able to keep this promise. Because the vision that the entrepreneur tries to realize is, to a certain extent, inhumane. She ignores the reality that his utopia cannot resist.

The legal situation

Be it the United States of America, the European Union, India, Russia or China – every country in the world makes laws. The days of the internet as a “legal vacuum” – which never existed in this form – are long gone. Whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, governments set rules. Companies and their owners must adhere to this.

Freedom of speech without compliance with laws will not take place. In a country like China, that might be the censorship of political content that doesn’t suit the regime. This could be a public call for suicide or violence in the US or in the EU because it is a crime.

“Comedy is now legal on Twitter,” Musk shared on his Twitter account shortly after the purchase. That sounds good too.

But what if “Go kill yourself” were just for fun, but someone actually commits suicide? When Musk’s Twitter purchase was sealed, the number of anti-Semitic tweets is said to have grown rapidly. Not fun at all. How should this be prosecuted without government access to user data? It doesn’t matter who doesn’t like the rules for whatever reason.

Elon Musk will also have to implement at least terms of use that correspond to the current laws of the respective countries. The courts ultimately decide how these should be interpreted.

the users

If you don’t want to let robbers, murderers, rioters or other troublemakers into your own home, then you probably don’t want that in the digital space. On the internet too, people, at least in the long run, look for a degree of protection against – generally speaking – content that they find unpleasant.

The doomed grand promise of free speech for all is not an invention of Elon Musk. Networks formed by right-wing conservatives and right-wing extremists, such as Gettr, Truth Social, Parler, and Rumble, also advertise that there is no “censorship” of content. The reality is different. Rules also apply on these platforms. Anyone who violates them will be blocked when in doubt.

The reasons for this are simple: if you don’t feel comfortable, you leave or you don’t come back. Depending on the business model and purpose of the company, if there are too many users, this means less influence, less power and less money.

In order for a sufficiently large majority to continue to feel “at home”, an uneasy minority must be deterred. It’s an inextricable compulsion: no platform in the world can be “everyone’s darling”. The comfort zones and interests of people and those in power are far too different for that.

The profit

Depending on the business model of a social media platform, it is not only about the so-called user experience, but also about the expectations of the vital advertising customers.

Anyone who advertises on Twitter expects an environment that won’t damage the reputation of their valuable brand. Not only the state, not only the users, but also the advertisers provide permanent pressure. Especially the richest man in the world can hardly escape this.

Elon Musk doesn’t just own Twitter. To save humanity, the Tesla boss mainly wants to sell his electric cars and also continue to receive government contracts from the American NASA for his SpaceX space expeditions. The value of her brands is directly linked to her name. Musk would jeopardize his business models if he made negative headlines due to serious issues on Twitter.

Valuable debates are Musk’s credit

That sounds like a suicide mission. Musk doesn’t necessarily have to fail at everything. For example, he could manage to fight his battle against bots and fake accounts as announced. It would also set a new gold standard for other platforms.

What remains is a problem: even real people spread lies and half-truths. Or they try to suppress facts. To finally decide what can be a lie and what can be truth – no ministry of truth could do that either. Can there be any solutions at all? Musk’s expectations of free speech fuel debates that will continue for a long time to come.

How do people want to live in the age of digitization? Can a way be found that doesn’t fit with China’s censorship, all-encompassing control model? Is there a way that at the same time does not end in chaos, because the democratic order is sacrificed on the altar of a completely free, ie violent and undemocratic speech?

It’s about free listening

A realization that perhaps needs to be accepted: today it is no longer about controlling who is speaking. Speech does not have to be exempt. There are now far too many, almost infinite possibilities to express oneself over the Internet.

Musk reveals there is a battle for free listeners and free viewers. Because the internet makes transparent how receivers freely decide which channels they listen to and what they tune in – with all the political, economic and social consequences that entails.

Russia, China and also authoritarian forces at home may have understood this reality of democratic societies, which is essentially very democratic at the root and therefore very prone to populism, much better than free societies.

Buying Twitter can also be understood as a task to start a journey that is not yet clear when it will end.

It is one of Musk’s abilities to at least formulate visions, naive as they may sound. Dealing with them and talking about them is uncomfortable. But it prevents blindly walking or stopping in the wrong direction.

sources