On April 25, Twitter, one of the world’s most powerful social networking services (SNS), announced it would be sold to Elon Musk, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Tesla and Space X, for 44 billion United States Dollars (USD). The change in ownership is expected to be accomplished within a year through stockholder voting and regulation authorities' approval. His plan to entirely control and transform Twitter into an unlisted company indicates breaking away from the surveillance and restrictions of stockholders, which poses a major controversy as Twitter will be in the hands of the world’s richest enterpriser.
With the uncovering of his plan to take over Twitter, Musk bought 9.2 percent of Twitter’s stock and decided to become one of its largest shareholders. At first, Twitter offered to have Musk join the board of directors, but Musk rejected the suggestion and asserted his strong intention to purchase the entirety of the company’s shares. In response to a potential hostile takeover, Twitter decided to adopt the defense tactic known as “poison pill,” which allows existing shareholders to buy additional shares at a discount. However, the situation changed as Musk succeeded in persuading the shareholders after announcing he would hold Tesla’s stocks as security in preparing his takeover funds. With more shareholders urging Twitter to accept the offer, Twitter’s board of directors unanimously agreed to Musk’s stock sales plan.
Musk’s Real Intentions
Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” has long criticized Twitter’s strict content restriction policy by raising questions regarding the company’s decision to permanently suspend the account of the former President of the United States (U.S.), Donald Trump. According to Reuters, Musk stated 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.” Therefore, Musk’s plan of purchasing Twitter arises from his personal belief and his will to develop the platform into a space for free speech and press.
Even before Twitter accepted Musk’s proposal to take over the company, Musk showed strong intentions of transforming the platform at a TED conference in Vancouver, Canada on April 14. Musk not only presented a sketch of his vision for Twitter but also stated that he was considering countermeasures - a plan B - in case Twitter does not accept his proposal. According to CNN, Musk said that if his proposal is accepted, he will “release the algorithm codes on the open-source platform ‘GitHub’ and collect proposals from various programmers for developing Twitter,” which would allow users to regain freedom of speech by checking which posts are biasedly recommended or censored by Twitter.
Why Are We Concerned?
Musk’s exclusive ownership of Twitter is expected to have a huge impact on the direction of the information technology (IT) industry and the appearance of media communication, as he is the CEO of big-tech companies with considerable influence over the state’s capital and economy. In fact, the disclosure of Musk’s plan to acquire Twitter led to fluctuations in Bitcoin markets and a significant drop in Tesla’s stock price of 12 percent. Now that the world’s largest communication channel is in Musk’s hands, his words, actions, and decisions will be more influential than ever.
Considering this change, some criticize Musk’s dominance of Twitter as an example of the monopoly of power. Elizabeth Warren, a member of the U.S. Democratic Party, tweeted that “this deal is dangerous for our democracy,” since “billionaires like Elon Musk play by a different set of rules than everyone else, accumulating power for their own gain.” She also commented that society needs to implement wealth tax and strong rules to restrict Big Tech’s authorities. According to The New York Times, Bill Baer, who led the Justice Department’s antitrust division during the Obama administration, stated that Musk’s almost exclusive control of Twitter will raise concerns among policymakers on how to oversee Musk’s management and control of Twitter.
In addition, there are concerns that fake news and extremist ideas could proliferate more rapidly than ever on Twitter. Mike Ryan, the executive director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Emergencies Programme, claimed that “if fake news related to health spreads after Musk takes over Twitter, people may lose their lives.” Furthermore, Reuters reported that human rights groups have raised concerns about hate speech against a certain population and the prevalence of false claims. As only a very slight difference exists between freedom of speech and reckless hate speech, radical lifting of Twitter’s sanctions may lead to serious problems of violent language.
Twitter’s popularity among politicians also raises interest regarding how Musk’s takeover of the platform might impact political communication. Twitter “forms direct and close connection among audiences” and offers a “two-way communication feature,” according to the business research journal Use of microblogging platform for digital communication by Professor Justin Paul from the University of Puerto Rico. These special attributes of Twitter are highly appealing to politicians, particularly during elections when every word and commitment of candidates count toward a vote. Musk’s mediation of Twitter regulations can be welcomed by some politicians who actively use digital communication to express their thoughts and positions. However, others worry about possible conflicts involving abusive language and provocative expressions, which ultimately muddles the social atmosphere.
For more than a decade, Musk has accumulated enormous wealth and power, which makes him an impregnable, monopolistic social figure and “the world’s richest man” as of 2021. Although he announced he would protect freedom of speech by easing Twitter’s regulations, concerns over Musk’s excessive intervention in media communication are rising. Whether there are proper agents and organizations to monitor Musk’s exclusive rights and prevent the monopoly of power remains an unanswered question.