This week I was reminded that the best way to sharpen an argument is to listen to people who strongly disagree with you. My piece calling Musk a new kind of creative CEO poised to seize power by owning a key communication channel sparked a wave of responses. Most if it came down to this: Haven’t powerful people long controlled the media, bending it to their interests?
Oh, how I love this thread. Because the answer is definitely “Yes!” From the days of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer to the more recent era of Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, the biggest brands in media have long been owned by solo plutocrats.
However, those who dismiss Musk’s takeover of Twitter as a modern example of a wealthy tycoon buying up printing presses or TV stations are falling into a dangerous trap. They forget that the Internet is unlike any communication technology that has come before it; they underestimate the power of technology to scale and control public conversation.
First, let’s talk about size. The reach of technology is far greater than that of any traditional media. Just to take one example, Twitter has about 229 million active users. The most popular US cable news network, Fox News, is in about 90 million homes—only a fraction of which actually watch it.
And let’s not forget that technology platforms can scale exponentially through network effects, while media companies cannot. The New York Times does not become more valuable to its readers as more people read it. Twitter—along with Facebook, TikTok, and others—does because more users create more content. This is the power of network effects. Twitter’s addressable market is far larger than any media company’s audience.
Plus, Twitter has a real-time impact. Media companies certainly shape the course of history with their coverage and opinion – but not moment by moment. News networks have become reactive to the constant flood of ideas and pronouncements made on social media, rather than the other way around.
As Musk knows from running Tesla, stocks can go up and down the content of his tweets. Politicians can and do negotiate through social media. (Remember when we thought Trump was going to start a nuclear war with Iran over a tweet?) And so the person setting the rules of engagement on social media can have near-instant power not to miss things.
Why do you think there is so much debate about an edit button on Twitter? Because the stakes are so high. Can you imagine the same kind of drama on the copy-editing desk of The New York Times making a subtle change in the paper’s proofreading policy? I can not.
If a platform like Twitter wants to block an idea, opinion or author, it can do so almost completely, thanks to artificial intelligence and filtering technology. No, moderation tools are not fully effective. But they can display far more content than any human editor could ever review.
I am not arguing that traditional media is not powerful. But comparing Musk’s control of Twitter to the influence of another business magnate trying to make their mark on the world is naive. This is not the tech equivalent of Jeff Bezos buying The Washington Post or Marc Benioff collecting Time. And if we continue to see it this way, we will be blinded by what comes next.
We’ve seen the power that individual decision makers can give social media companies. We’ve seen how these companies have shaped elections, fueled riots and genocide, and enabled tyrants to spread disinformation. We’ve also seen these platforms used for good—to share important public health information, to give voice to marginalized people.
And now, one man – with no shareholders and, I suspect, a very weak board of directors to hold him back – will have 100% control over a key outlet. This, to me, is unprecedented. So we have to pay attention. And we shouldn’t be complacent simply because Musk has pledged his allegiance to “free speech.”
like Musk has made it clear during the last chaotic days, his supposed lack of a partisan ideology is not so simple. I actually agree with him that Twitter has gone too far in moderating some speech. And I applaud him for tweeting that he hopes even his “worst critics” stay on Twitter because “that’s what free speech is all about.” (Phew, he’s no dictator.)
But there’s still an uncomfortable amount of gray area he’ll have to contend with. Is bullying free speech? What about bullying? Or incitement to violence? Or revenge porn? And as he soon becomes the sole owner of Twitter with almost no checks or balances on his power, I’m nervous that only he can make the call about who speaks on the platform, what they can say, and who sees it. . now, he has shown no concern about using the platform to push his agenda, with little respect for the employees at the company, whom he has openly criticized.
As fortuitous as the deal came together, we shouldn’t dismiss it as another rich person’s prank. Those who do will again miss the incredible power of technology and what it can do in the hands of the people who control it.
