The Public Sphere in the Palm of His Hand

“Widespread verification will democratize journalism & empower the voice of the people,” Elon Musk wrote in a tweet on November 6^th, 2022, after taking over Twitter.

This tweet made me raise an eyebrow—which is not an uncommon response to an Elon Musk tweet—because it made me reflect on ideas about journalism and democracy and my own experience with Twitter.

Honestly, I love Twitter. At home in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is how I stay connected with friends and community members. I often find stories on Twitter and engage with interesting topics of discussion. To let you in on a little secret, I use Twitter to stay on top of the news. Although I will admit Twitter is not the best place to find information, it is a fantastic starting point for a young journalist like myself.

Musk has also recently come under scrutiny for suspending the Twitter accounts of journalists who report on him. From what I have seen, Musk’s changes to Twitter are not turning the platform into a space for public discourse and access to information. Instead, it is generating new hierarchies that enable profit generation. 

Indeed, democracy is at the cusp of disintegration across the western world. Yet, I do not foresee subscription-based “blue-check” verification enabling constructive public debate that strengthens democracy—because Elon Musk is trying to profit from the public sphere by owning it.

The Digital Town Square

Before buying the company, Musk claimed that “Free Speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.”

“The town square,” or “public sphere” is not a new concept. According to philosopher Jürgen Habermas it refers to the space in which the public engages in discussion to form public opinion. The public sphere must be unrestricted and open to everyone. The public sphere also acts as a “public” authority asserting its political control and thus having influence over the government.

I believe this is the concept to which Musk is speaking when he calls Twitter “the digital town square.” Social media frequently poses as a public sphere—a space where anyone can “freely” engage in discussions about politics.

But as legal scholar and author Mary Anne Franks points out in her essay “Beyond the Public Sphere,” “while social-media forums may feel like public spaces, and the companies that own them may exploit this perception to their advantage, their relationship to the public is fundamentally commercial and contractual.”

Twitter is a commercial enterprise, meaning it is built to serve commercial interests—profit—and not serve democracy.

Hate, Free Speech, and Check Marks

On November 1, Musk tweeted “Twitter’s current lords and peasants’ system for who has or doesn’t have blue checkmark is bullshit. Power to the people! Blue for $8/month.”

Anyone willing to pay now can have a blue check mark next to their name, which was once only reserved for verified public figures, celebrities, and journalists.

Verification is an important process in journalism; it is a way to distinguish trusted news sources from  anonymous commentators on social media. Journalists are held to a higher standard of truth and fact-checking. That is not to say that all journalists do a good job of this, but when searching for credible news sources on social media it is essential to know who is following a higher standard of information sharing and who is only there to spew conjecture to support a certain political agenda. 

Musk also reinstated several once-banned accounts, including that of Donald Trump, who was banned after inciting the January 6th attack on the US capitol, and Jordan Peterson, who frequently expresses  anti-trans hate speech.

Musk has unbanned people with extremist opinions to symbolically liberate the platform from its former constraints. He believes he will turn it into a free speech haven where public discussion can take place and inform democratic decision-making.

But, in an effort to create a “digital town square,” Musk has turned the largest online social media platform into an unmoderated space where extremists can have verification and hate speech can go unchecked—all in the name of “free” speech. But whose speech is free?

Further Marginalization on Twitter

Yet, recent data from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate shows that in the first week of Musk’s ownership of Twitter, there was an increase in hate speech, including a tripled use of the n-word slur. Human Rights advocates fear that Musk’s changes will have disastrous impacts on civil liberties and could lead to offline violence.

For the Black community, Twitter has been the main platform used to connect members and share solidarity—commonly referred to as “Black Twitter.” Black Twitter is a “subaltern counter public”—which is a term coined by American philosopher Nancy Fraser that refers to parallel public spheres for members of subordinated social groups to engage in alternative discourses based on their specific identities and needs.

Elon Musk has also claimed to be a “free speech absolutist” which largely contradicts his actions since acquiring the platform. Musk frequently removes Twitter accounts that he doesn’t like or ones that contradict him, including comedians who jokingly impersonate him, a bot account that tracks and shares his private plane flight data, and even left-wing activists. He has also suspended the accounts of journalists who write about him, so let’s hope he doesn’t see this article. 

It seems that your speech is only free if it follows a certain political agenda or does not agitate Mr. Musk himself. 

Musk is creating a welcoming space for right-wing extremism on Twitter by creating more room for bigoted hate speech and less room for dissenting views, and marginalized counter-publics. So, while Musk claims that he believes free speech is a necessity for democracy, his actions indicate that he actually believes only in free speech–for some. This change is dangerous as it will hinder marginalized groups’ ability to engage in productive discussions that hold governments accountable, further removing any lasting democratic merit from the platform. 

In attempting to put his ideals of free speech into practice, Musk inadvertently demonstrates the limits of his own fantasy: all spaces require some kind of moderation, and no speech is ever without consequence.

Money Can’t Buy Democracy

I believe the fundamental issue is that Elon Musk wants to own the public sphere. This means that he wants to control it and profit from it. As Franks explains, “social media platforms are designed to serve corporate, not public, interests.”

She points out that for social media platforms to make money, they must prioritize engagement, which creates an incentive for encouraging harassment and sharing false information that can destroy democracy itself. On Twitter, hate speech and dubious information drive clicks.

Therefore, it is likely no accident that Musk’s changes to Twitter generated a rise in hate speech. It incites more user engagement, which translates into higher financial gains. The democratic intent he claims to have is a false narrative constructed to hide his true intent—to drive profits and discourse that benefit only him and his company. The richest man in the world shouldn’t be allowed to control the closest thing we have to a public sphere.