In April 2022, when billionaire innovator Elon Musk pronounced his plan to acquire Twitter, he underscored his belief that the social media giant must remain politically impartial to merit public confidence. He indicated this would fully satisfy both extreme political wings. Prior to this, conservatives had consistently accused Twitter of being occupied predominantly by liberals from the West Coast, who they believe suppressed any narratives that did not align with their standpoint.
Two years later, the perception has flipped entirely. Accusations are now directed at Twitter, known as X, claiming it channels the political beliefs of its owner, Musk, who has evidently leaned quite heavily to the right and frequently postures on both national and international events. In recent weeks, his portrayal of far-right uprisings in the UK as a “civil war” along with his baseless criticism of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for tackling them, and the dissemination of unfounded claims originally published by the rightwing group Britain First, has sparked anger amongst British politicians and law enforcement.
In the European context, the European Union’s Services Commissioner, Thierry Breton, has warned Musk on Monday of invoking “maximum penalty” under EU legislation if he doesn’t manage to hold back the flow of “illegal content”.
On the other side of the Atlantic, in the US, Musk has chosen to fully back Donald Trump’s 2024 run for presidency. Contributing to this support, Musk conducted a two-hour long, praise-filled interview with Trump this week, setting himself up as a potential advisor should Trump regain the presidency. At the outset of his discussion with Trump, Musk posted a disrespectful image directed at Breton basically telling him off.
Musk’s unapologetic stand on unrestricted freedom of speech has endeared him to his supporters, who regard him as a beacon of truth. However, to his detractors, Musk’s views are leading Twitter down a treacherous path, showcasing the potential dangers when an influential social media and news source is led by someone with political inclinations.
Eli Pariser, co-director of the nonprofit New_Public, noted with irony the current situation, saying, “What we have now is precisely what conservatives feared for years – that the owner would act in a politically biased manner. However, the bias has played out in the conservatives’ favour. It is for this reason that such a significant global forum should not be controlled by a single Silicon Valley company.”
Elon Musk’s recent controversial actions have highlighted his evolution from lauded pioneer to a divisive figure. Despite his commendable efforts in renewable energy, transportation, and space exploration, many now perceive him as much of a disrupter as an innovator.
Regardless of the uproar, questions remain over Musk’s potential influence on elections and any consequential threat to global equilibrium. Some propose that he may simply be capitalising on current events for publicity, with investor and activist Roger McNamee suggesting that Musk might just be a disgruntled individual shouting into a storm.
Upon becoming the proprietor of X, Musk has become a champion for absolute freedom of speech and strives to eliminate the bias that was prominent under previous liberal leadership. After buying the platform for €40 billion ($44 billion), the tech mogul relaxed its moderation strategies, reinstating previously barred accounts including those of Trump, and far-right figures such as Alex Jones and Tommy Robinson. Alongside this, he introduced community-led fact-checking initiatives like ‘community notes’ rather than removing misleading or offensive content.
Throughout this year, Musk has increasingly immersed himself in domestic and international political affairs. Following Trump’s assassination attempt, Musk publicly backed the former president for the first time and has expressed his donation to a pro-Trump super PAC.
Conservatives have long voiced their concerns of prejudice in social media platforms. However, these grievances have shifted to Democrats. Congressman Jerry Nadler from New York recently requested an investigation into claims that users of X were prevented from supporting Kamala Harris after being named as the party’s presidential candidate. Recently, an account supporting Harris by the name of ‘White Dudes for Harris’ was cited as spam following false allegations of manipulation, whilst another group, ‘Progressives for Harris,’ experienced a temporary suspension.
Specialists caution that distinguishing between technical errors and deliberate attempts at speech suppression, particularly following Musk’s dismissal of numerous communications and policy staff, can be challenging. Eli Pariser from New_ Public pointed out that one of Musk’s first actions was to dismantle the existing infrastructure that provided transparency into X’s decision-making and regulatory enforcement processes.
The undeniable indifference reflected by Musk towards the truth is the very reason why the government must intervene in media ownership. His seemingly unrestrained ability to make spontaneous decisions in a completely non-transparent manner raises eyebrows especially considering the gravity of his influence. It’s perfectly normal for people to question the situation when there is an abundance of power with a significant lack of transparency.
No matter whether or not Musk modifies the platform behind the scenes to promote political agendas, his personal posts on X, given that he has close to 195 million followers, the highest on the platform, inevitably carry significant impact.
In the past, Musk has instructed engineers to tweak X’s algorithm to inflate the impressions of his own posts, an action he indirectly confirmed in a post. The extent of his power is evident from a study by the Financial Times, which has found a substantial uplift in the reach of far-right accounts and hashtags due to Musk’s recent engagements, including those who typically wouldn’t have access to such content.
As the US heads towards its November ballot, several professionals caution that Musk’s propensity to circulate unfounded election conspiracy theories or misinformation could risk undermining the democratic system. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, on last week, reported that election allegations by Musk, tagged as ‘misleading’, boasting claims such as ‘Democrats importing voters’ or an AI ‘deepfake’ of Harris, had over 1.2 billion views on X without any attached fact-checks or community notes.
This month, a letter confronting Musk about election-related misinformation emerging from the AI chatbot ‘Grok’ on X was written by five secretaries from different US states.
Though unlikely that Musk could sway a voter’s party affiliation, Katie Harbath from Duco Experts and previously from the National Republican Senatorial Committee warns that Musk’s misleading information could influence ‘voter turnout’, especially if it pertains to false claims about poll violence. Harbath also likens Elon’s increasing trash talk and impassioned rhetoric to possible triggers of real-world violence.
It’s, however, complex to measure the level to which online discourse might provoke real-world reactions. Yet, it is apparent that Musk’s contribution to certain dialogues seems to have ignited some local groups in few countries.
For instance, in the South American country of Brazil, business magnates are seen as heroic by conservatives for resisting calls to shut down certain widely-followed extremist accounts and demanding a top-level judge to either “step down or face impeachment”. Leonardo Meira Reis, an expert from the Eurasia Group based in Brasília, cautions that remarks made by Musk regarding X carry tangible impacts in a severely divided nation such as Brazil. He further states, “Although Musk can’t be held accountable for Brazil’s political divide, his actions are accentuating it”.
In the meantime, studies conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University reveal that extremist factions perceive Musk’s acquisition as a chance to flock back onto the platform in large numbers. According to one study, the institute noticed hashtags associated with X in Ireland being utilized to rally anti-immigration protests, shortly before public disorder and violent demonstrations broke out in the country’s capital.
In the United Kingdom, law enforcement and experts attribute the recent disturbances to X as well as other social media platforms, with Musk being seen as aggravating the situation. Many are worried that worse may lie ahead. “The current social media headlines are not unprecedented: a brittle egotist incessantly posting on a social network which he owns”, penned Bruce Daisley, ex-chief of Twitter’s activities in Europe, Middle East, and Africa, in a column. “We recall how such scenarios have turned out previously – for example, how Donald Trump’s irate tweets following his electoral loss led to the infamous Capitol attack on the 6th of January, 2021.”
However, a number of specialists contend that Musk’s sway is not boundless. Under its latest proprietor, X’s societal impact has been on the wane and the platform is noticeably smaller than its main competitor, Meta. According to Emarketer data, X boasts a global user base of 359 million, a figure dwarfed by Meta’s Facebook, which claims more than 2 billion users.
Others point out that many liberal users are migrating to alternative options such as Meta’s Threads replica, suggesting that Musk is largely preaching to a choir of believers.
According to Anupam Chander, a Georgetown University law professor, while X might shape the discourse, it’s not the primary news source for many. Actions taken to regulate Musk and X have so far been somewhat aimless. In Europe, officials are leveraging the Digital Services Act, requiring social media platforms to monitor and control hate speech and misinformation. If a site refuses to halt potentially harmful activities, the EU commission has the power to instruct telecom providers to disable access to the platform in the country of origin.
In contrast, there are less preventive measures in the US preventing Musk from using his own platform for political promotion or misinformation propagation. Traditional news agencies have clear guidelines to preserve editorial independence, which aren’t applied to tech platforms. These platforms are protected by not just the First Amendment but also Section 230 of the Communications Act, thus safeguarding them from legal consequences for hosted content.
Emily Bell, a Columbia University journalism school professor, suggests that Musk’s autonomy to function as a vocal media mogul is due to Silicon Valley’s historical resistance to internet regulation creating a regulatory void. Bell states “With Musk, the reality is the outcome of a meticulously crafted legal framework suggesting self-regulation is feasible for these platforms. Musk, with copious funds, has exploited a weak system, exposing a deliberate systemic breakdown, with all platforms being culpable in this failure.” The source of this article is The New York Times.