WHAT REALLY DOES MUSK’s TWITTER DEAL MEAN??!!

It’s no longer news that the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, purchased the social media platform Twitter for around $44b . The South African tech mogul says he’s not doing it to make money (which is good, because Twitter has rarely turned a profit), but rather because, among other things, he believes in free speech. Mhmm! That could be superficially true in my books , Lol !

Twitter might seem an odd place to make a stand for free speech. The service has around 217 million daily users, only a fraction of the 2.8 billion who log in each day to one of the Meta family (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp).

Even though the platform plays an enormous role in this contemporary society of ours , it is more or less essential infrastructure for all disciplines of life so to say .

The bird app has it is fondly called has been used to coordinate emergency information, to build up communities of solidarity and protest, and to share global events and media rituals ; from presidential elections to mourning celebrity deaths (and unpredictable moments at the Oscars) just being sarcastic , don’t mind me .

Twitter’s unique role is a result of the way it combines personal media use with public debate and discussion. However, this is a fragile and volatile mix and one that has become increasingly difficult for the platform to manage.

According to Musk, “Twitter is the digital town square, where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated”. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, in approving Musk’s takeover, went further, claiming “Twitter is the closest thing we have to a global consciousness”.

Are they right? Does it make sense to think of Twitter as a town square? And if so, do we want the town square to be controlled by libertarian billionaires?

Is it a town square? When Musk and some other commentators use this term, I think they are invoking the traditional idea of the “public sphere” , in other words a real or virtual place where everyone can argue rationally about things, and everyone is made aware of everyone else’s arguments.

Some critics however would think we should get rid of the idea of the “digital town square” altogether, or at least think more deeply about how it might reinforce existing divisions and hierarchies.

I think the idea of the “digital town square” can be much richer and more optimistic than this, and that early Twitter was a pretty good, if flawed, example of it.

If I think of my own ideal “town square”, it might have market stalls, quiet corners where you can have personal chats with friends, alleyways where strange (but legal!) niche interests can be pursued,

a playground for the kids, some roving entertainers and, sure, maybe a central agora with a soapbox that people can gather around when there’s some issue we all need to hear or talk about.

That, in fact, is very much what early Twitter was like for me and my friends and colleagues.

I think Musk and his legion of fans have something different in mind ; a free speech free-for-all, a nightmarish town square where everyone is shouting all the time, and anyone who doesn’t like it just stays home.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta