Why Elon Musk Is The Wrong Man To Take Over Twitter

Elon Musk’s tweet is displayed on a phone screen on April 14, 2022. (Photo illustration by Jakub … [+] Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

NurPhoto via Getty Images

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter represents a triple threat. He is the wrong man to exercise sole control of the wrong company at the wrong time.

Musk has said that his plan to take Twitter private is motivated in part by his desire to reduce content moderation that he says infringes on free speech. If the $44 billion sale goes through, the world’s richest man will control one of its most influential social platforms at a time of escalating political polarization in our society that is made worse, in part, by the rapid spread of political disinformation online. Such a sweeping change should encourage lawmakers to undertake efforts to promote transparency and accountability by social media sites in the United States, in a manner similar to what the European Union recently agreed to do.

Musk has many strengths as a technologist and entrepreneur. He has transformed the automotive industry with Tesla, which is leading the way in the development of electric vehicles. He has created Space X, a pathbreaking effort to build commercial rocket ships. This has made him a very rich man, with a vast public platform. Emboldened by his commercial success, he is not shy about articulating his views.

Over the years, Musk has routinely expressed frustration about the way he and his companies have been treated by traditional media outlets and amplified on social media. Some of this criticism has come in reaction to his efforts to quell union organizing in his factories and reports questioning the safety of auto-piloted Tesla vehicles.

Twitter is the wrong company for Musk to control. As a privately held company, Twitter would not be subject to the same disclosure requirements as publicly traded companies. Nor would it be required to have a board of directors elected by shareholders to provide oversight of management. It is one thing for the Mars family to run a large privately held company that sells candy bars and cat food. It’s quite another thing for a company like Twitter, which is a significant player in the public information space, to be accountable only to a single owner, especially when that owner is Elon Musk.

Musk calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” and on Monday urged that “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.” He has been highly critical of social media sites, like Twitter, which he believes are removing too much content as part of their efforts to moderate what they deem to be hate speech, bullying, false information about public health issues and various forms of political disinformation.

He seems not to understand that robust content moderation is in the best interest of social media companies, and in the best interest of our society. If he takes the helm of Twitter and abandons content moderation, the site will quickly be overwhelmed by pornography, spam, hate speech, conspiracy theories and other deliberately false information pertaining to a wide range of social and political issues. This new version of Twitter will drive away many of the platform’s more than 200 million daily users, and with them advertisers that provide the bulk of the company’s revenue.

Because of the volume and speed of discussion online, moderating content well is both expensive and very challenging. But Musk’s apparent notion that what goes up on his new company’s site should stay there unless it violates the law reflects a naïve and unrealistic view of what companies like Twitter need to be doing. If he pursues this vision, it is likely to make matters worse.

Musk’s decision to leap into an industry where he has little experience could not come at a worse time. The United States, like many other countries, is plagued by growing political and social polarization. A recent report from the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, which I direct, concluded that though social media did not create polarization in the U.S., it has exacerbated it and worsened partisan animosity. Though Musk’s stated intention to disclose more about how the company’s algorithms work is laudable, his suggestion that allowing users to offer ideas on how to improve the system will be an effective way to solve the site’s problems seems unrealistic at best.

Last week, the European Union took an important step in shaping a system of government oversight of social media that respects free speech principles. Through its Digital Services Act, the EU outlined a set of new requirements that will enhance algorithmic transparency, push companies to undertake internal risk assessments and clarify when they can be held liable for content posted by users. These measures point in the right direction and offer a reasonable starting point for the development of government regulation in the United States as well.

Though U.S. lawmakers have introduced a number of legislative proposals, it’s a crowded landscape with lots of conflicting and contradictory ideas. Perhaps Musk’s purchase of Twitter can serve as a catalyst for long overdue oversight.