How Elon’s Twitter Takeover Unpacks the Shifting Landscape of Media
Hello Metaverse Research Collective Edition #2
Elon Musk’s recent Twitter takeover took the internet by a storm. His proposal to make the platform more conducive to free speech triggered our interest in getting a bigger picture on what the coming conversations may indicate about the future of media and the online exchange of ideas. We spent the last month gathering historical context on how the current state of internet media came to be and envisioning how the consumption of information will change in the coming decade. Here’s what you need to know (~12 minute read):
Changing Times: The New Language of Memes
When asked about his quote, “Who controls memes controls the universe,” Elon offered this response:
“I mean it's a play on words from Dune: ‘Who controls the spice - controls the universe’. And then if memes are spice then it's memes… how do you [know] what is it that influences the Zeitgeist? …how do things become interesting to people. …a meme's like actually a complex form of communication…like a picture says a thousand words and maybe a meme says 10,000 words.” (Elon Musk via the Clubhouse Interview Transcript)
Elon’s newest edit of the “distracted boyfriend” meme format on Twitter this week.
When memes first became popular they were largely overlooked as a legitimate mode of communication. We are just now beginning to understand them as a new information medium spurring cultural shifts. Memes serve as an important satirical tool to promote socio-political awareness and yield great influence under the guise of comedy.
People often attribute the unique power of memes to their brevity – easy to consume, quick to share. They are primed to go viral. However, the label “viral” may be even more accurate than we realize. Ben Thompson, author of tech and business strategy blog Stratechery, writes:
[The Internet] isn’t just about demand — my first mistake — nor is it just about supply — my second mistake. It’s about both happening at the same time, and feeding off of each other. It turns out that the literal meaning of “going viral” was, in fact, more accurate than its initial meaning of having an article or image or video spread far-and-wide. An actual virus mutates as it spreads, much as how over time the initial article or image or video that goes viral becomes nearly unrecognizable; it is now a meme….The power of memes is not simply the amount of information they convey, but the malleability with which they convey it. (Mistakes and Memes)
Being easily editable and shareable allows memes to take on endless forms and begs for the internet to put them in conversation, and in the process has birthed a new language form. Memes also offer us a way to drink from the fire hydrant of news in a more emotionally-manageable manner. There’s no better example of this than with the COVID-19 pandemic.
We are not just meme-oriented, but meme-dependent. It’s about time that we work to understand a bit better just how this omnipresent form of communication is shaping our lives.
Deep-Dive: Section 230 “Safe Harbor”
For Context: Communications Decency Act: Section 230
Elon has promised to create a version of Twitter where free speech is uncensored. However, there are good reasons for why moderation is currently an important part of social media platforms. The persisting issue is that the law has not made it clear what responsibility social media companies should take on as social media moderation is still governed by a law enacted in 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Prior to Section 230, UGC platforms faced a deadly dilemma: either they moderate content and are then considered a publisher and hence liable for all the content on their platform, or they abstain from moderating entirely. Section 230 was introduced to give UGC platforms the right to restrict certain kinds of content/speech, but notably did not introduce any responsibility to do so. This article offers a concise summary of Section 230 including key legal cases, legislative history and timeline, and publications on its significance to catch you up on the law that’s key to the existence of all social media and UGC platforms.
Who’s Saying What?:
Interestingly enough, the people dominating the conversation about Section 230 today aren’t in tech but in politics. And what’s more intriguing is that it seems that both Trump and Biden agree it should be either rescinded or at least revised – but for very different reasons.
The left and right make different arguments, which I’ll simplify. Left: ‘We have a huge problem with fascist disinformation and propaganda, and the platforms are a big part of it, because they bear no responsibility for what appears on their platforms.’ Right: ‘The platforms are grossly biased against conservative speech, and they should only have immunity if they don’t censor anyone.’ With great power comes great responsibility, right? Who could be against that? The only problem is that abolishing Section 230 would address exactly none of these complaints.” says Tim Wu (Professor at Columbia University; author and Obama Admin veteran) - Liberals and Conservatives Are Both Totally Wrong about Platform Immunity
According to Dave Gershgorn (Senior Writer at OneZero, previously at NYT) – Activists Warn Biden Administration Against Rescinding Section 230 “Organizations such as Fight for the Future, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, and Data for Black Lives are typically critical of laws that indemnify Big Tech companies, but in this case, the civil rights advocates and tech firms are aligned: Nobody wants Twitter or Facebook to be legally obligated to police more kinds of speech. ‘We concur that Congress should act to address the harms of Big Tech through meaningful legislative action on data privacy, civil rights and other fronts, and enforcement of existing antitrust laws,’'' the letter says.
These opinions do not leave us with a resolve. “The problem is that [the] two subsections [of Section 230] are actually in conflict. When you grant platforms complete legal immunity for the content that their users post, you also reduce their incentives to proactively remove content causing social harm. Back in 1996, that didn’t seem to matter much: Even if social media platforms had minimal legal incentives to police their platform from harmful content, it seemed logical that they would do so out of economic self-interest, to protect their valuable brands. Let’s just say we’ve learned a lot since 1996.” (Harvard Business Review - It’s Time to Update Section 230)
There’s ongoing legislative action working to revise (or rescind) Section 230, but with the contentious debate on all sides and gravity of the law’s influence (undoubtedly unforseen to its original creators), there’s no sign of concrete action anytime soon. In the meantime, the tech sector is left to interpret and apply the law as they see fit.
Interestingly, the rise of Web3 and DAOs may provide compelling work-arounds that would shift the focus away from Section 230 legislation and to the prospect of decentralized moderation methods. For example, DAOs’ token-based participation model may offer resolutions to many of the current shortcomings of community-based moderation and allow platform members greater say in the set of rules and regulations they’ll be governed by (as OpenChat strives to do). The creation of more robust decentralized networks could also be a very powerful asset in protecting speech in places in which journalism and dissent would otherwise be taken down by oppressive governments or other entities (as Fleek seeks to create with their Internet Computer initiative). For more insights into how web3 could fundamentally change moderation check out crypto journalist Nicole Buckler’s piece “DAOs: Big Corporations Will No Longer Have Power Over Our Speech.”
Deep-Dive: Inside Elon’s Influence & Ironies
The True Extent of Elon’s Influence
Often when there’s a seemingly arbitrary shift in the stock market or crypto, an Elon Tweet dropped not long before it. There’s long been speculation about how much Elon’s Twitter fingers influence the market, but quantifying the true extent of his influence in aggregate is important as he takes on this new role within Twitter itself. Here’s an illustration to provide a comprehensive understanding of just how much weight each of his <280 character messages carry.
Perhaps the most well-known result of his influence is Dogecoin. Here’s a mapping of his Tweets correlated with the price of DOGE over 2021-2022 (c/0 Coindesk):
Etsy and Shopify have both notably benefited from his simple but positive Tweets. Four words, “I kinda love Etsy”, sent Etsy’s stock up 8% in a number of hours and ignited a 2-year-long climb up nearly 500% (CNBC). Similarly, seven words, “Shopify is great too. SpaceX used them.” sparked an upward spiral for Shopify’s stock price.
Elon’s simplistic and often cryptic Tweets have also led to a few comical blunders over the years. On January 7, 2021 he tweeted “Use Signal” recommending the messaging app, and investors mistook it for company Signal Advance, sending Signal Advance’s stock price up 1,000% within only a number of days. In the following weeks Signal Advance was at one point worth $3B USD while today the stock goes for less than a single USD (Free Press Journal).
Elon’s words undoubtedly carry extreme weight which will only increase with this new purchase, and we’re interested to see what role his particular vocal role will play in Twitter’s transition period.
The Irony of Elon’s Pledge to Open Source
Some of the conversation has also been focused on Elon’s intention to open-source Twitter’s algorithm. While this may seem to be in the public’s best interest (as Musk claims it is), many technical authorities have raised significant concerns with the proposal.
In addition to the security risks it may pose, critics argue that open-sourcing the algorithm won’t really reveal any actionable insights into how the algorithm works, increasing the likelihood of problematic false conclusions. As University of Cambridge postdoc researcher Jennifer Cobbe put it, “Most of the time when people talk about algorithmic accountability these days, we recognize that the algorithms themselves aren’t necessarily what we want to see—what we really want is information about how they were developed” (MIT Tech Review).
That said, it’s unlikely to stop interested groups from searching for evidence to confirm their suspicions of how the algorithm affects the distribution of their speech. Interestingly, “Musk might have a strong aversion to authority, but his desire for algorithmic transparency happens to chime with the wishes of politicians around the world. The idea has been a cornerstone of multiple governments’ attempts to fight back against Big Tech in recent years” (MIT Tech Review). “Some on the right of the political divide are rubbing their hands at the prospect of finally proving that conservative perspectives are routinely ‘shadow banned’—or prevented from receiving the kind of prominence that they actually deserve” (Wired). We worry that open-sourcing the algorithm will produce out-of-context conclusions and add fuel to the fire of political polarization.
Bonus Bytes
What the Numbers Say: Most Republicans who consume news on Twitter (63%) say the site is mostly bad for American democracy, while 26% of Democrats share this view. Democratic Twitter news consumers are more likely to say Twitter is mostly a good thing for democracy (54%).
A Look into the Future: Elon says WeChat is a great model for the future of Twitter
In the Twitterverse: FTX exchange co-founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried’s thoughts on new monetization strategies for Twitter
On Your Radar: Grimes on Elon Musk buying Twitter | Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
If you haven’t already, check out the newest episode of the Hello Metaverse podcast with web3 financial education content creator Kyla Scanlon on Why Decentralization and The Metaverse Matters wherever you get your podcasts!
