National Review
Online
Tuesday, April
26, 2022
Well, it’s actually happened. Elon Musk
has bought Twitter. “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning
democracy,” Musk said in a statement yesterday afternoon, “and Twitter is the
digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.”
We wish him well in his attempt to make that “digital town square” more open,
less arbitrary, and better suited to the potential of the Web.
Almost to a man, critics of the purchase
have begun warning about the “Wild West” that will result if Musk gets his way.
But, as ever, their assumptions betray them. Nowhere has Musk said that Twitter
will be entirely devoid of moderation. What he seems to be saying instead —
what Twitter’s critics have demanded — is an end to the caprice. It is, of
course, entirely possible for Twitter to construct a set of neutrally
applicable rules that require people of all political viewpoints to engage with
each other in a civil way. The problem has been that, in practice at least,
Twitter’s rules were achieving no such thing and that, over time, users had
noticed.
Yesterday’s news should remind Americans
that where there is a dynamic market economy, there will always be rapid
change. Six months ago, those griping about the way in which Twitter was being
run did not see this coming. Nobody did. The talk was about the government, and
Section 230, and whether, if you squint a little, Twitter could be forced to
look like a phone company. But where there is demand, there will eventually be
supply, and, by buying Twitter from its previous owners, Musk has vowed to
alter that supply and bring it into line with the preference of a large share
of consumers. In business, at least, there are many second acts in American
life.
The road ahead will not be easy. Many of
Twitter’s employees will quit, while others will stay and resist Musk’s
alterations. After the decision was announced, Bloomberg reported that
executives were so nervous about the prospect of employees “going rogue” that
they halted all software updates. Outside of Twitter, too, the pressure on Musk
will be intense. For a good example of the double standard that obtains,
consider that when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, Business
Insider described the acquisition as “a fascinating cultural
transition in America,” whereas when Elon Musk bought Twitter, the outlet
described it as “a chilling new threat.” Musk, as ever, is Schrödinger’s
billionaire.
Were we designing the web from scratch, we
would never choose to put Twitter in its current position. Twitter’s format
destroys nuance, encourages hyperbole, and all but begs its users to form mobs.
That it has become as popular as it has among the opinion-making class cannot
be a good thing in the long run. But it is here now, and the important question
is whether it can be made better than it currently is. Elon Musk clearly
believes that it can, and says that he looks “forward to working with the
company and the community of users to unlock” its potential. Godspeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment