Billionaire Elon Musk has officially purchased social media company Twitter, in a move that has caused both celebration and anger amongst its workers and users.
Despite doubts that Musk would purchase the company after putting the deal ‘on hold’ due to Twitter allegedly misrepresenting the number of bots and spam accounts on the platform, the deal was officially completed on October 27, at an estimated cost of US$44 billion.
It was reported that the Tesla and SpaceX owner, within minutes of acquiring Twitter, promptly fired many executives who were escorted out of the building by security.
Musk’s vision for Twitter was laid out in a tweet, where he said it was ‘important to the future of civilisation to have a common digital town square… [because] social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.’
The deal has been praised by conservatives and Republicans, who see it as good progress for online free speech. Many will point to previous examples of Twitter seemingly trying to censor right-wing speech.
However, it has also been opposed and criticised by liberals and Democrats, who fear a rise in misinformation and hate speech on the platform.
It’s bigger than free speech now
The reaction and effects of Musk’s takeover of Twitter should be evidence enough to prove that Twitter has a far more important role in society than most realise or are willing to admit.
It has exposed many for who they really are, most of whom fall into two camps.
There are those who wish to have absolutely no limits to speech at all (even at the possibility of real world harm), and those who wish to shape the internet’s political landscape in their image, to the extent where they would leave a platform that provides a space for opposing viewpoints.
For some, it’s welcomed anarchy. For others, it marks the end of their digital and intellectual comfort.
Many would argue that Twitter has evolved from just another social network to a public utility, something that Twitter workers themselves have described the platform as.
It is ironic, therefore, that a public utility finds itself in the midst of such controversy. To some, the fact that the takeover (for the purpose of free speech) is controversial in itself is the reason why Twitter needed a change.
The only people who should be concerned by this takeover are those who do not truly believe in free speech, but rather a sort of authoritarian online culture.
There are those who are actually upset that there will now be LESS censorship on the platform.
The reaction to Musk’s takeover proves this, as many have left the platform due to somewhat baseless claims about a supposed ‘rise of hate speech’; a concept in itself which has been recently challenged and rejected.
It also proves that many were comfortable on Twitter, pre-Musk, which in turn exposed a cultural and political bias that the company had.
If Twitter considers itself a public entity, it must be free of all bias and become a space where people can simply exchange ideas.
Therefore, to not wish to be part of that is to not want to be part of the public, which is demonstrable proof of how ideologically polarised society has become.
What now?
Musk plans to lay off over a quarter of Twitter’s workforce, and has until 1 November to take legal action to avoid having to pay bonuses to certain executives.
He has also proposed making Twitter’s blue tick verification function a subscription service.
Activists and left-leaning politicians see this as potentially dangerous for democracy and individual rights, whilst right-leaning politicians and commentators believe it to be important for the future of online communication.
To some, the digital playing field has finally been levelled.
It does seem, at least for the immediate future, that this is a watershed moment in the culture war that society seems to find itself in the midst of.
