Elon Musk Buys Twitter: What Does This Mean for Free Speech on Social Media? 

In a digitized, interconnected world, the freedom of expression has entered an entirely new domain. Individuals or groups holding significant clout on the internet have far-reaching networks through which they may propagate their views. On such an inflated scale of communication, stakeholders have begun to question how these streamlined information-sharing processes have redefined the liberty of speech.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and media extraordinaire with over 81 million followers on Twitter, announced on April 13th that he wants to own all of Twitter, exponentially expanding his 9% share of company stock, according to the New York Times. In his Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposal file, Musk wrote a message to Bret Taylor, chairman of the board of Twitter, explaining that he initially invested in Twitter because he “believe[d] in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe.” Musk further noted that “the company [Twitter] will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative [free speech] in its current form.” His vision is to privatize the company after purchasing the remaining shares.

Louai Allani, a first year student at Sciences Po Menton, “believe[s] that Elon Musk can definitely tap into Twitter’s true potential, which is free speech, democracy, etc.” Allani explained that “it would be very beneficial for Twitter to capitalize on the insight that Elon,” a super entrepreneur, as Allani calls him, would offer the company.

Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion on Monday, April 25, a move sparking concern amongst those combating online hate speech and gaining support from other “free speech absolutist[s].” One Tweet reflective of the oppositional sentiment is that of political and social rights activist Shaun King: “At its root, @ElonMusk wanting to buy Twitter is not about left vs right. It’s about white power. The man was raised in Apartheid [South Africa] by a white nationalist. He’s upset that Twitter won’t allow white nationalists to target/harass people. That’s his definition of free speech.” All that is certain is that Twitter will undergo significant changes to its platform, unleashing further debate over the role of social media in civil liberties. Business Insider has identified several significant changes Musk would likely make upon ownership: (1) “looser moderation” of content on the platform; (2) rendering Twitter’s algorithm “open source,” meaning that it can be “manipulated openly by many different contributors;” and (3) introducing an edit feature through which Tweets can be changed after they are shared. Musk has openly quarreled with the idea that Twitter is a “de facto town square” regulating public speech, a sentiment further demonstrated by his criticism of permanent bans from the platform, as seen with the removal of Donald Trump.

Musk’s prioritization of free speech on social media platforms has emerged amidst a broader debate on the role these platforms should play in protecting expression and preventing dangerous forms of abuse and misinformation. TIME references contemporary research which has found that “sites that privilege free speech above all else tend to result in spaces where civic discourse is drowned out by harassment, restricting participation to a privileged few.” Social media interactions are fundamentally different from real human relations, suggesting that regulations may need to adapt accordingly. So, should speech on social media be completely unrestricted, or do companies like Twitter have a responsibility to ensure equal access and limit the dissemination of false information?