Monotheistic religious scriptures examine the role of prophetic figures in undertaking singular responsibilities in framing the socio-cultural needs of civilizations – similar narratives are present across Roman, Greek, Mughal and Persian mythology.
Roman dictator Julius Caesar famously transitioned his Republic towards the status of an Empire – the benevolent Moses freed the Israelites from slavery.
History as such, leaves room for debate regarding the legacies of powerful men across time.
Yet in the 21st century one would presume that the necessity for an all-powerful man who dictates social narratives would surely have been replaced by equitable, democratic and accountable systems of governance – institutional mechanisms and collective values that align with the needs of common people, should nurture practices, rather than such being enforced as per the opinion of supreme entities and elites.
Nevertheless, when a man with the kind of wealth never seen before in human history, takes control of what is perhaps the most influential knowledge sharing and information ecosystem, one begins to express concern regarding the state of global democracy –are we simply creating further room for the enhancement of a democratic mirage where the elite have the undisputed and unquestioned authority to determine societal norms?
Elon Musk takes the reins of Twitter with a mandate to make the platform a haven for free speech as he puts it.
There will be those who support the move from a corporate standpoint, arguing that his involvement would yield much needed financial impetus for a company whose recent economic struggles have been a cause of grave concern– price volatility, anticipated economic risk considerations and market uncertainty with respect to Twitter and Tesla stocks, have naturally characterized the past week or so.
Yet expecting the unexpected is perhaps warranted – given the nature of the buyout.
However, there will be others who will use a different lens, and express discomfort at the possible accentuation of hate speech in the platform – and that remains the focus of this article.
In taking either of these viewpoints it is fundamental to have a conversation about the impact this development has on the international democratic landscape – especially in the context of a digital age.
Big Tech companies, while creating an innovative ecosystem which has enhanced democratic engagement, have rightly been heavily criticized for engineering a space for conflicts to flourish – or more accurately, blasted for showcasing indifference towards curtailing hate speech and fake news.
At the crux of it is this – a billionaire entrepreneur and his personal opinions about what free speech is - is on a journey to determine the direction taken by Twitter as an information dissemination platform.
One single individual who calls himself a free speech absolutist – with unmatched economic capital, unfettered social power and deeply divisive political perspectives – will govern how Twitter transitions from being a company which in the recent past has indeed made an active effort to devise digital security regulations, by investing in both technology and expertise to detect, counter and address threats, harassments, misinformation and fake news.
While one hopes that Musk considers this critical obligation of social media companies, this expectation is in most likelihood, utopian.
Unpopular?
It would be inaccurate to suggest that Elon Musk is an unpopular figure across the board – he has his cult of followers.
In fact, one cannot avoid recognizing his groundbreaking contributions to the modern world – he is undeniably a revolutionary entrepreneur.
But political history and academia suggest that the path taken by the likes of Musk across centuries of human history, have supported a process of de-democratization in society – particularly due to the concentration and consolidation of financial and social power towards wealthy men.
Academics Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie recently published a paper regarding the state of democracy in relation to the digital space, where two critical societal elements were analyzed– the decline in trusted independent journalism in comparison to the rise of social media-abetted tribalism and the waging of information warfare.
Rumors were spread by religious extremists in Myanmar against the Rohingya population through Facebook – the rest as they say is history.
Prior to the riots at the US Capitol on January 6, 2020, then President Trump unconstitutionally incited a group of American citizens, primarily via social media, by indicating that the elections which he had lost, were rigged against him – leading mainstream media houses, top political analysts, the American judicial system and pretty much the entire world, said otherwise.
Yet – the Capitol was indeed attacked as a result of misinformation being allowed to flourish.
Therefore, the question we ask ourselves is this: will Elon Musk – a business mogul who supposedly wants to liberate the digital ecosystem and strengthen democracy by enshrining ideals of free speech within Twitter – curtail hate speech or disinformation?
I have my doubts.
There is a fine, but crucial line between free speech and hate speech – and logic, if not anything, dictates that a billionaire entrepreneur should not have unfettered authority to set the narrative when it comes to norms of democracy and social cohesion.
More specifically – one cannot stop an individual from investing into a platform, irrespective of whether they have a public mandate to do so.
Such is free enterprise.
But what regulators can do is to provide, and curate enhanced insight, legislative guidance, judicial oversight and accountability measures that can curtail the power that one individual has over society – whether this be through a Wealth Tax as suggested by former American Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, or broader control mechanisms over Big Tech.
The reality is that most legal frameworks allow government restrictions on speech which promotes racial, ethnic or religious discrimination.
Democracy dictates that under most circumstances the state should not be in the business of telling people what to say or what not to say – yet the state or responsible corporate stakeholders have an obligation to clamp down on hate speech or lies if such is required as per law.
Therefore, if Musk does choose to make Twitter a platform with little to no consideration when it comes to concerns such as this – free speech absolutism as he calls it – then he opens the doors for misinformation and disinformation to take center stage. And that cannot be appreciated.
In this article, I will avoid mentioning the numerous instances of how Elon Musk and his platforms acted against free speech and democratic principles. But the problem which lies at the core is this – the prospect of the richest person in the world tapping into his massive wealth to take control of Twitter and at the same time use this platform as a means to channel his personal vision of a democracy and free speech, adversely puts grassroot-based democracy in question.
A dangerous precedent has been set – which clearly says that if you have the money you can buy anything.
And if you have the money you can create ideas, promote narratives and initiate social bubbles– and impose them on the masses. Therefore – Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter is a direct attack on the core tenets of a democracy.
He is cultivating a demi-god like status through the realm of financial capital, and his arrogance is toxic if not anything – and if history is correct when it comes to cases like these, then the bad will outweigh the good in the long-run.
The author is a Toronto-based banking professional and a regular columnist for Bangladeshi media outlets. He can be reached at aftab.ahmed@alum.utoronto.ca