Elon Musk’s recent takeover of Twitter has left the platform’s future highly uncertain, with changes to moderation policies prompting questions about corporate censorship.
Following a whirlwind of seemingly arbitrary changes and extensive downsizing, Twitter is on the verge of collapse. Users and employees have abandoned Twitter in droves, with some believing that the exodus of expertise means total collapse. In the short period since the takeover, Twitter has been assailed by a host of crises, including a mass of impersonations, a spike in hate speech, and the reinstatement of prominent banned accounts. Former employees have spoken out extensively against changes to the platform, painting the picture of an institution governed by petty ego and naïve idealism. Some have even claimed that Musk’s public polls, intended to democratize the site’s rules are mostly driven by bots, existing only to give the outward appearance of user ascent to the increasingly right-wing trajectory of the platform. The mask of objectivity has slipped, and advertising revenue sustaining the platform was wiped out (almost) overnight due to companies’ refusal to sanction new standards for acceptable use.
Sweeping changes have created endless headaches for federal regulators, and the increasing prevalence of splinter apps has obfuscated the landscape of acceptable speech. Roughly half of Twitter’s valuation as of Musk’s purchase has been wiped out in the following two months, and the decline has yet to abate. Following an embarrassing loss in a public poll on the platform, Musk has announced his intention to cede control of the platform, though his successor has yet to be named. Musk has become notorious for his inability to accurately predict market trends over the past couple years, though he may soon become a victim of his own grim economic forecast. Twitter’s newly precipitous status means it may be among the string of bankruptcies Musk predicted would follow the early 2022 economic boom. High profile tech moguls have had large sections of their wealth dissolve due to bad investments predicated on similarly faulty assumptions about public interest. Musk’s December release of the so-called Twitter Files, a series of content moderation rulings concerning claims made about the 2020 American election, was intended as a last-ditch effort to justify his mindless changes. Rather than reversing the free fall of Twitter’s valuation, it was met with equal measures of scorn and praise; it prompted renewed questions about the degree to which corporations can be trusted with the levers of censorship and the responsibilities of big tech to maintain channels for free speech.
Though its fate is not yet sealed, the collapse of Twitter as a platform could have untold ramifications for the international political sphere and the future of social justice movements. The consequences its failure will likely be carried by Twitter’s most vulnerable user bases, those who rely on it to provide them a voice in difficult times. Twitter is an unprecedentedly universal political discourse and activism forum, with innumerable movements’ survival determined by platform engagement. The minimal restrictions outside of hate speech have made it a powerful global tool for free speech, giving visibility to issues which might have otherwise been ignored. Though Twitter’s acceptable use policies were often controversial, they were at least predictable.
Twitter is, of course, not without serious flaws, some of which can be traced back to the same sources as its strengths. Despite the lack of algorithmically driven content and filtering, those who understand the internal dynamics can use them to their personal advantage. Many politicians can credit their electoral success to a strong social media presence, and others can point to it as their downfall. For example, the election of Donald Trump can be credited largely to his Twitter presence, which in turn brought meteoric growth to the platform and proved that inflammatory comments were an extremely effective means of growing metrics. Trump’s personal brand of unwittingly genius rhetoric was ideal for Twitter’s 200-word limit and spawned a new brand of political discourse centred on punchlines and snappy comebacks. Dozens of prominent right-wing politicians have followed this example, permanently altering the landscape of political engagement on the platform.
Twitter’s universal nature is a double-edged sword, while it amplifies fringe voices and microcosmic ideologies, it also grants hateful rhetoric a more direct connection with an audience. The norms of political interaction have led to greater political polarization and ideological absolutism. Opposite extremes of the political spectrum are regularly put in direct contact with each other, while being isolated enough to allow animosity to grow. Celebrities can drive a considerable amount of engagement with social movements, a factor which is both helpful and problematic at times. Public figures are not always equipped to be brokers of morality, but their status on the platform makes silence on such matters a personal liability.
Though criticized far more than praised, Twitter has been an undeniable force for good during its 16-year existence. It is safe to say that high-minded political debate is not the goal of much of the user base. Nevertheless, Twitter has played a significant role in bringing social justice initiatives into the public eye and popular vernacular. So-called ‘hashtag activism’ is a phenomenon originating on Twitter that has received considerable scholarly attention. Though its effectiveness in producing any real change is up for debate, it has nonetheless changed how social movements are organized. The platform is driven by trends over narratives, giving rise to virtue signalling and performative activism. Sustained user engagement with a given topic is rare and often does not extend beyond a handful of tweets. It could also be argued that in making activism more accessible, it has also become more superficial and less meaningful. The visibility of social movements has nonetheless dramatically increased beyond what it would otherwise be without Twitter. During the #MeToo movement, perhaps the most well-known example of ‘hashtag activism,’ a simple retweet allowed a dignified and private expression of solidarity with victims of abuse while also showing the scale of the issue.
Twitter has been an extremely valuable tool in many recent protest movements, bypassing media blackouts and serving as an important means of communication and organization. Despite internet shutdowns by the Iranian government, Twitter posts have been the only reliable documentation of recent anti-government protests. Global engagement has helped put greater pressure on the government, bringing attention to their violent crackdowns on peaceful protestors and leading to some signs of progress. The images and videos circulated on Twitter were cited by the United Nations as the reason behind their opening of an investigation into human rights abuses.
Climate justice activism has been particularly significant on Twitter; the Idle No More movement of 2012-2013 gained momentum using the namesake hashtag which helped to connect Canadian indigenous groups against environmental destruction and the infringement of treaty rights. In addition, Aboriginal Australians successfully campaigned against the seizure of reserve land for development, earning celebrity endorsements and international support. Arguably, significant figures in the climate justice movement credit their success to Twitter, and though the types of activism the platform rewards with ‘viral status’ have prompted some questionable stunts, it has nonetheless kept the issue in the public eye.
Therefore, Twitter has been at the centre of such a vast number of social movements that it is easy to forget a time before the platform existed. Grassroots organization has been made easier than ever, and whether it persists or is replaced by any of the splinter apps attempting to take its place, has yet to be seen. Moving to another platform does not fundamentally change the issue of allowing tech companies the power to regulate free speech on public platforms. Companies certainly have a licence to establish rules and it is clear that a complete drawback from moderation is not the solution. Though slightly premature to eulogize, it is safe to say that the days of Twitter as a force for good are all but over.
Edited by Afreen Mithaiwalla
