Thread
It’s happened – Musk owns Twitter. What now?
I am deeply concerned. But I truly value the reflections and conversations I’ve been able to have on here, and I am not willing to abandon that - not unless it becomes entirely impossible to use this platform in a constructive way.
I am deeply concerned. But I truly value the reflections and conversations I’ve been able to have on here, and I am not willing to abandon that - not unless it becomes entirely impossible to use this platform in a constructive way.
This isn’t just about Twitter. It is highly problematic that tech oligarchs are amassing so much power and influence. They are not democratically controlled in any way, there are no checks and balances, they are not guided by any concern for the public good.
What’s happening is not politically neutral. Musk, specifically, has been on a rightward trajectory for some time. He seems to see himself as a noble defender of “free speech” against the onslaught of “wokeism” and leftwing “cancel culture.”
Many tech oligarchs have been on a libertarian-to-Far-Right path – Peter Thiel is probably the best example for this dynamic. It’s surprising only if we translate “libertarian” as “freedom” in the most simplistic sense and assume that the modern tech world must be liberal.
The type of libertarianism that people like Thiel and Musk exhibit, however, has always been driven by a desire for freedom from regulation of any kind, a deeply held belief that they should be enabled to do as they please, that every regulation or accountability is illegitimate.
Thiel and Musk believe that the world works best if people like them are in charge, get to do whatever they want to do, unhampered by the state or demands for equality – because they are convinced that whatever they want to do is by definition in the interest of humanity.
It’s an inherently anti-democratic worldview. It’s not surprising, therefore, that such people gravitate towards the reactionary political project of maintaining traditional hierarchies and towards autocratic regimes who can give these oligarchs the kind of freedom they desire.
And now that inherently anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian worldview is in charge of yet another platform that forms a crucial part of the (virtual) public square. We can’t predict how, exactly, that will affect the product; but it’s also entirely reasonable to be concerned.
There is certainly much to criticize about Twitter. But the dismissive “Get over it – Twitter is not real life” reflex never made any sense. You don’t have to like Twitter to understand that it has been enormously influential in shaping the broader public and political discourse.
Crucially, Twitter has been instrumental in amplifying the voices, demands, and criticisms of traditionally marginalized groups. Much of the reactionary “cancel culture” moral panic is a reaction to precisely this.
Traditionally marginalized groups have gained enough influence and have acquired the technological means to affect the political debate, to make their demands heard, to extract a political cost for certain discriminatory behavior.
Twitter has provided a key platform for traditionally marginalized groups to address their demands for equality and respect directly at the powerful; much of the mobilization and organizing around social justice issues has happened with a hashtag. #MeToo #BLM
Democracy – egalitarian, multiracial, pluralistic democracy - needs platforms that provide such opportunities. It needs a protected public square, real and virtual. Again, Twitter is far from the ideal of this kind of public square. But it could be used to democratizing ends.
I want to be clear: There are no easy answers, there’s no clear-cut right or wrong here. There are only bad options left on the table. But to me, personally, it seems counterproductive to preemptively surrender the platform to Musk and those who cheer him on.
I don’t want to be willfully naive: It’s entirely possible that very soon, it might become entirely impossible to use Twitter in any constructive way. And I certainly haven’t seen anyone make a plausible argument why and how it wouldn’t get worse.
But I see tremendous value in Twitter facilitating conversations of journalists, politicians, and other public figures with people who would usually never have access to those levels of influence (academic observers, for instance) – that’s something worth preserving.
I don’t want to make this too personal, but if there is any value in people like me sharing their observations with a broader public audience and thereby injecting their analysis and commentary into the public debate – then, as of right now, there’s no equivalent to Twitter.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see no functional alternative. We can either try to keep having the kinds of conversations and, yes, communities of which we have been part on here, or we’re not going to have those conversations at all.
I have no easy answers. But for now, I will stay here and try to keep doing what I have been doing, will try to add something to the debate around America’s past, present, and future, hoping that it finds its way to people who value those conversations like I do.
