Uncaging the bird: charting a Twitter flight path post Elon Musk
How the "Twitter Files" and a billionaire’s erratic behavior make the case for democratizing the digital public square
On this week’s episode of the AND Campaign’s “Church Politics Podcast”, co-hosts Justin Giboney and our own Pastor
discuss the fallout of the so-called Twitter Files, government attempts at shaping the narrative on the platform, and what could or should be next in the wake of Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping down as CEO of Twitter.
“I don’t think that he’s succeeded at the mission that he set out — at least publicly — what he said his mission was,” Giboney said of Musk. “I’ve really been surprised by how hasty, how shortsighted and how hypocritical some of his policies and some of his decisions have been since he’s taken the head of Twitter.”
Among those decisions, Musk banned several prominent journalists for reporting on a Twitter account Musk says revealed sensitive information about his location. The action happened without warning, and seemed to contradict Musk’s earlier claims that he was so stridently in favor of free speech that he would not ban the “Elon’s Jet” account, a student-made bot that tracks the whereabouts of Musk’s private jet.
In the aftermath of the violent attack on Paul Pelosi, Musk amplified right wing conspiracy theories about the incident. And Qanon, the ever-morphing, conspiratorial mythology birthed in the Trump era, has gotten its second wind on the platform during Musk’s tenure.
The Twitter Files, as reported by journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and authors Michael Shellenberger and David Zweig, revealed the ways in which the platform censored speech, sometimes at the behest of government officials.
While some liberals and leftists might see value in suppressing speech from conservatives on the platform, others caution against condoning the erosion of freedom of speech.
“You can’t allow your ideology to interfere with some of these basic principles of American democratic society and American life,” said Pastor Chris Butler. “You may agree with the fourth estate, the agencies, whatever you want to call it. You may agree with them in this particular moment because you might be saying, ‘Hey, they’re targeting conservatives and racists, so I’m going to support them.’ But you’ve got to understand, this is the exact same apparatus that was used to target civil rights leaders, and leftist organizers. So, these tools can easily be turned against your side.”
And it’s worth noting that Musk has done exactly that since taking over the platform. The Intercept reported that Musk banned the Twitter accounts of several leftist activists after far-right provocateur Andy Ngo suggested he do so.
I’ll note that I personally and recently experienced a taste of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a ban from Twitter. On December 20, just a few hours after I decided to take advantage of Twitter’s new Twitter Blue service, I got a notice that my account had been permanently suspended.
After appealing the decision, I got an email telling me that I had violated the company’s terms of service by setting up more than one account with “overlapping purposes”. The email indicated that I would not be able to use my other account, which I have used for more than seven years, because doing so would be a violation of Twitter’s rules against evading a permanent suspension.
Some background information: in 2020, I ran for public office. Like many who do, I started a separate account. I decided to maintain both accounts even after my race was over because I knew I would likely run for office again. I use the original account mostly for my journalistic pursuits and for personal use, and post my thoughts on politics on the campaign account.
I had to open a new complaint to the original suspension because the email said that Twitter would not reverse the decision.
As it turns out, the entire incident involved an overzealous, automated sweep of my account, the first step in getting my blue check mark. So, a bot permanently suspended my account and sent out an automated email telling me that my suspension was irreversible.
This is no way to run a public square.
And that’s what Twitter is. Around one in five Americans is on the platform, and most of the most influential political and cultural figures converse there. The platform has enormous impacts on our culture, so the way it is run has serious implications.
The Twitter Files show that we can’t go back to the way things were at Twitter before Elon Musk. But we certainly can’t allow things to continue the way they are under the soon-to-be outgoing CEO.
We need a better way forward, and I guarantee you that turning Twitter over to a different millionaire or billionaire won’t solve our problems. We need more decentralized, democratic ways of dealing with these issues.
In general, the “marketplace of ideas” concept is good, but like all markets, imbalances can and do occur in the marketplace of ideas. Certain players in that market have more market power than others. Some have so much power as to have a near monopoly. This is certainly true of the rich and the powerful.
Again, this is why we cannot trust people whose incentive is the profit motive, or whose incentive is fame or power, to control the marketplace of ideas. I implicitly trust a grand total of one billionaire. He fights crime, he dresses like a bat, and he’s fictional.
“Just let Elon Musk handle it,” is definitely not the solution.
The best tech solution for decentralized and democratized microblogging I’ve seen so far is Mastodon, though it’s a bit wonky. I hope platforms like this continue to grow in popularity and get more user-friendly.
Ultimately, I would argue that the only way to ensure we end up with a public square that works for all is to democratize the platform. If you’re on Twitter, then you contribute to the platform’s viability, diversity and even profitability each time you tweet. Why shouldn’t you have some say in the way it's run?
That’s precisely what a recent piece from Wired magazine suggests. As far back as 2016, Wired’s leadership put its money where its mouth is, launching the Buy Twitter campaign to urge the tech giant’s former executive leadership to study the feasibility of turning over the platform to its users to be run as a democratic cooperative.
If you want to see a better platform in the future, I would urge you to join the campaign for greater user control over what has become our digital public square.
Let’s make sure public discourse belongs to the public, not to the highest bidder.