Free speech has never been more expensive
How Elon Musk has mismanaged his vision for Twitter
By Jeremy Potter
Staff Writer
Elon Musk has had a tumultuous first few weeks as CEO and owner of Twitter. He came in with, admittedly, a clear vision for the company: free speech and power to the people. The problem? Well, in Musk’s own words, “we need to pay the bills somehow!” Upon buying the website, he faced incredible pressure to increase profits. After all, the purchase cost him $44 billion.
In the midst of Musk’s ambitious changes to Twitter, he seems to have lost not just the company’s employees and his money, but also his principles. He has now placed himself in a position in which he cannot pursue all three at once. To understand why, we need to first understand that Musk claims to be a “free speech absolutist,” and argued before his purchase that Twitter needed to reevaluate its biased content-recommending algorithms.
Musk’s vision would undermine the platform’s relationship with its advertisers. The reason is simple: traditional models of monetization just aren’t compatible with the “completely free speech” that Musk is selling users. Before Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, ninety percent of the website’s profits came from advertising, meaning that advertisers leaving could hurt Twitter substantially.
Advertisers aren’t keen on their message being displayed in unmoderated spaces. There’s a reason why the internet forum 4chan, one of the biggest unmoderated “free speech” communities online, has historically struggled to attract and retrain advertisers: companies don’t want to be associated with the toxicity, bigotry, and hatred that Musk’s Twitter might contain.
Twitter has already started showing signs of a toxicity spike, which would poison the platform for advertisers. Free speech absolutism would dictate that any moderation whatsoever is an infringement of users’ rights. However, this philosophy makes attracting advertisers difficult.
Musk, to his credit, has recognized this apparent contradiction. On Oct. 27, he assured advertisers that Twitter would not become a lawless “free-for-all hellscape.” This move, to some, seemed to roll back some of his earlier messaging about the ultimacy of free speech, despite Musk assuring users that this was not the case.
However, likely because of the contradictions inherent to Musk’s promises, advertisers are continuing to pull out of Twitter. Companies such as General Motors, Pfizer, and United Airlines have all left the platform, now leaving Twitter’s financial future uncertain. Musk himself reported that Twitter’s losses are now in the range of $4 million a day.
It is important to note that advertisers, for months now, have endured a long period of speculation and uncertainty. Their fears are partially driven by the confusion that has surrounded Musk’s potential purchase of the platform. Despite this evidence, Musk seems reluctant to address advertisers’ concerns regarding his management. Instead, he blames the exodus of advertisers on “activists” who oppose him.
He’s also threatened to “name and shame” advertisers who stop advertising on Twitter. This move is extremely counterproductive, actively harming relations with the companies who provide Twitter with necessary funding. As Thomas Germain writes for Gizmodo:
“Companies paying to promote their image worry more about running ads alongside inappropriate content, and it’s hard to imagine how threatening to smear brands will promote healthy business relationships.”
While combating lost funds from advertising, Musk has also workshopped another possible solution to Twitter’s financial problems: charging users for verification of their accounts. Musk’s proposal was integrating verification into Twitter’s existing “Twitter Blue” program, where users can pay a monthly subscription for additional perks. This proposal signaled Musk’s commitment to monetizing the platform in new ways, possibly removing Twitter’s dependence on advertisers.
One problem with Twitter Blue immediately noticed by critics is that allowing users to pay for verification would destroy all utility that the badge once held. In pre-Musk Twitter, a verified user was one confirmed to be associated with a real face and name. Verification signaled identity. However, charging users for verification would erode all meaning that verification used to provide. The very same blue checkmark which once signified that a user was, in fact, the identity they claimed online was now nothing more than a signifier of disposable income.
Indeed, new registrations for Twitter Blue have quickly been disallowed. The program lasted less than three days since its launch, and caused untold problems for Twitter staff. The final straw was likely users impersonating large brands and making tweets designed to ridicule business practices they disagreed with or found distasteful.
However, satire is protected free speech, meaning that while these users may have broken Twitter’s rules on impersonation, they certainly didn’t violate any tenets of “free speech absolutism.” The rebuttal, of course, is that this speech was not immediately distinguishable as satire. But when the long-standing indicator of authenticity on Twitter, the blue checkmark, suddenly went up for sale, who’s fault was that really?
Even if Twitter Blue had launched successfully, and even if impersonation didn’t run rampant immediately after the option to purchase verification became available, the scheme of paying for checkmarks would still run antithetical to Musk’s philosophy of “free speech absolutism.” The plan which Musk claimed would give “power to the people’’ would in reality involve suppressing the speech of those who do not pay a monthly $8 tithe.
This is because Musk has stated that users who pay for this plan would receive “priority in replies, mentions & search” over those who do not pay, who will essentially have their speech repressed in the same regards. Free speech has never been more expensive.
Musk has indicated that he is willing to leave free users behind in his quest to provide “power to the people.” But what he fails to understand is that providing “power to the people” never involves drawing lines between them.
Musk’s focus on free speech seems more rhetorical now than anything. To understand what Musk really means when he claims to prioritize free speech, we might look at the changes he’s planning to content moderation and community standards. As Bloomberg reports:
“Musk has… asked the team to review Twitter’s hateful conduct policy, according to the people, specifically a section that says users can be penalized for ‘targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.’”
Musk’s purchase of Twitter was met with celebration from reactionary extremists who couldn’t wait to begin posting hate. One report found that the usage of the N-word increased by 500%. Self-described theocratic fascist Matt Walsh posted a tweet in response to Musk’s purchase, reading: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to start misgendering again.” In addition, Former President Donald Trump, removed after inciting his followers to violently contest the results of the 2020 Presidential Election, has now had his account reinstated on the platform.
We now have an interesting set of boundaries placed upon speech in Musk’s Twitter. Musk has made clear that parody accounts are off-limits, at least without clear labeling. Users who do not pay are likely to have their speech suppressed by the algorithm. However, there has been no clear action taken to combat the threat posed by hateful bigots. As one Twitter user commented:
It’s not out of the question to ask if Musk’s concerns about free speech were primarily aimed to appease those extremists. It wouldn’t be the first time Musk has flirted with far-right ideology on the issue of transgender rights. In 2020, Musk tweeted that “pronouns suck,” drawing ire from both the transgender community and linguists alike.
Musk, in recent weeks, has also promoted right-wing politics using his platform. Immediately after buying Twitter, Musk retweeted a homophobic conspiracy theory related to the assault of Paul Pelosi. He also publicly endorsed a Republican ticket in the 2022 midterms.
It’s certainly starting to look like Musk’s concerns about freedom of speech are actually concerns about the ability of right-wing figures to spread their messaging, regardless of toxicity. Trump’s reinstalment seems to support this theory, at the very least.
Musk’s claims about prioritizing free speech are seeming weaker and weaker. Regardless of whether or not one still believes in Musk’s rhetoric, one thing everyone can recognize is that Musk has a broad transformative vision for Twitter, and plans to make sweeping changes to the platform. This raises the question of how Musk intends to make such changes.
This is relevant because as Musk hopes to dodge financial ruin, he’s also been slashing Twitter’s staff. Yael Roth, head of Twitter’s trust and safety team, stated that Musk had laid off nearly 50% of the company — around 3,700 employees. Another 1,200 have resigned after Musk asked for remaining workers to pledge to work “extremely hardcore.”
The real kicker comes when examining the roles of these terminated employees. Musk’s layoffs have affected all departments, but those hit hardest are those who he seemingly identified as irrelevant: ethics, accessibility, and political trust and safety. Even some core engineering teams have faced cuts.
The employees who remain have been met with terrible working conditions. They have suffered through cuts to their benefits, arbitrary performance metrics, and even the normalization of sleeping in the office to meet insane deadlines and avoid further layoffs. Those responsible for maintaining the platform are simply not able to do twice the work they could before. As one anonymous employee told The Verge: “Shit is gonna start breaking.”
The icing on the cake is that Twitter has allegedly asked terminated employees to return. This indicates a complete failure of corporate vision, and that Musk’s layoffs were the result of him fundamentally misunderstanding the needs of his own company.
Even if Twitter manages to overcome this mishandled transition, it will be a much worse platform for users, advertisers, and workers. Almost everybody comes out of this transformation worse off. I only say “almost” because Musk’s Twitter will be the perfect platform for right-wing bigots and scammers.
It is difficult to imagine a more mismanaged vision for the platform. Nearly every mistake in the book has been made, and almost none of the concerns raised in response have been addressed in good faith. It will not be a surprise if Twitter reverses these planned changes, or indeed if it declares bankruptcy entirely.
However, we have Musk to thank for one thing: this transition has single-handedly disproven the myth that billionaires acquire their wealth through skilled management of their companies and assets.
Questionable ideological changes aside, the financial crisis Twitter finds itself in is evidence that Musk is playing with forces he does not understand. Until Musk is able to reckon with his role, Twitter will continue to struggle onward, burdened by its new owner.
Jeremy Potter is a sophomore majoring in Political Communication.
