While it is entirely possible that Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter will end like one of SpaceX’s less-fortunate launches, if Twitter survives, Musk’s unenthusiastic views on ESG will undoubtedly become amplified on that social media platform.
Musk’s views on ESG are surprisingly out of step with his business genius reputation. The rapidly growing market for ESG investing is now over $1.1 trillion and is expected to accelerate as more investors focus on the social and environmental impacts of their financial affairs. Increasing the adoption of electric vehicles is dependent upon consumer’s anticipated cost savings and their belief in that EVs are better for the environment. Tesla’s mission statement, “….to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy,” and the company’s commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are at odds with Musk’s hostility toward ESG issues.
These inconsistencies do not bode well for Twitter. The first problem that Musk faces is that he appears to have liked the idea of owning the company more than the reality of doing so. His purchase of Twitter was among the more bizarre stories of the year, as he first tried to take over the company, then tried to get out of the deal, and finally – under legal threat – went through with the purchase. Considering this on-again, off-again courtship, it’s not hard to imagine a world in which his new company gets less attention than it needs if it is going to thrive. It is also worth remembering that Musk is responsible for two major corporations in addition to Twitter: Tesla, which is facing increased competition from traditional car manufacturers; and SpaceX, which recently secured a $1.4 billion contract to supply the International Space Station. Musk may be a great businessman, but he has a lot on his plate.
Another issue is that Musk has no significant experience running a social media company; his chief qualification for owning Twitter (aside from his wealth) is that he is a prolific user of the platform. The problem, of course, is that a social media company is not the same as a car company (let alone one currently with an effective monopoly on the electric vehicle market), and there are reasons to doubt the skills are transferrable. Moreover, the trouble that fellow billionaire (and actual tech executive) Mark Zuckerberg is having at Meta, makes clear that a company with a questionable business plan can quickly burn through tens of billions of dollars.
Aside from the harm caused by neglect or incompetence, there is the very real possibility that Musk will actively make Twitter worse. Upon assuming control of the company, he fired several top executives, and has threatened to cut Twitter’s staff by 75%. (The fact that he changed his mind a few days later may not provide much comfort.) Even if the final cuts come in under 75%, layoffs on anything approaching this scale would cost the company a great deal of its institutional memory and make competent governance much harder for Musk to pull off. And Musk’s recent squabble with Stephen King over charging a monthly fee for the “blue check” verification has made him seem impulsive and indecisive.
Upon finalizing the deal to acquire Twitter, Musk tweeted, “The bird is freed.” This of course begs the question of what the bird is now free to do, and early results are not promising. Soon after the deal’s completion, Twitter saw an uptick in racist content, raising the possibility that Musk’s brand of “free speech absolutism” will lead not to the thoughtful exchange of ideas, but open the door to the internet’s most vicious and vile inhabitants. If Musk’s absolutism causes Twitter’s more thoughtful users (and more advertisers) to abandon the platform, his promises of a free speech utopia will ring hollow indeed. It also has been pointed out that the cuts outlined by Musk will make moderating content far more difficult, so the transformation of Twitter into a sort of 4chan-lite may be accomplished as much by default as by design.
At this point, we should recall that the possibilities outlined above are the best-case scenarios. If Twitter collapses, public discourse may suffer in the short-run, but something else will take its place. The more worrying scenario is that Musk’s Twitter will survive long enough to do real harm to its users and issues like climate change, stakeholder engagement and other ESG focused matters.
Musk’s brand of free speech absolutism is one that privileges the loudest and most obnoxious voices, making it bad for public discourse. Unfortunately, and not coincidentally, it also makes Twitter an excellent vector for misinformation and conspiracy theories. (Facebook is probably worse, simply due to the demographics of the platforms, but that’s a topic for another day.) If Musk follows through with his promise to allow all speech that is not clearly illegal, we can expect to hear far more from the covid-skeptics, anti-climate changers and election deniers, which will cause measurable harm to the world.
In the case of the former, it is easy to simply write off an anti-vaxxer’s death as cosmic justice, but the sheer number of deaths (we are talking about an astonishing 250,000 preventable deaths) makes such mockery more than a little ghoulish. Sit with the idea of 250,000 deaths for a moment, and realize that this is more than the entire population of Boise, Idaho. Then remember that no small number of these individuals were unvaccinated through no fault of their own, either because they were medically ineligible for the vaccine, or because they were taken in by the anti-vax crowd. With covid poised for a winter surge, a sudden increase in anti-vax propaganda on social media will lead to unnecessary illnesses and deaths, and add to our nation’s grim total of suffering both among the unvaccinated and their loved-ones.
In addition to promoting anti-vax conspiracy theories, Musk’s Twitter would once again become a megaphone for the anti-democratic conspiracists behind the attack on the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Not surprisingly, there is overlap between these groups, as seen in the case of the right-wing terrorists who plotted to kidnap and kill Democratic Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and the recent attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If Twitter is used to spread conspiracy theories and violent anti-government rhetoric, we should not be surprised when individuals put words into action. Indeed, this week Musk injected himself into the discussion by Tweeting his skepticism (and a clearly absurd link) about the recent attack on Paul Pelosi. The fact that the man accused of attacking Pelosi appears to have been mentally unstable does not mitigate the role of conspiracy theorists in shaping his actions. This is how stochastic terrorism works, and an unconcerned Twitter will only make matters worse.
As dangerous as the new Twitter might be to the American Experiment, we also should note the potential mischief that an ever-more-powerful Musk can cause on a global scale. When all is said and done, Musk will control not just one of the world’s largest social media platforms, but also, through SpaceX, the Starlink system of satellites, which are vital for a whole host of everyday activities. As a result, Musk wields more power than many, if not most, heads of state. When Musk spent a few hours learning about the war in Ukraine, he wound up parroting Kremlin talking points and threatening to cut off Ukrainian access to the Starlink system. (There is some evidence that Ukrainian access may already have been curtailed in order to hamper their offensive operations.) The fact that Musk has had discussions with the Pentagon about the Starlink system speaks to the power that one extremely rich individual can wield, and it certainly is a worrying precedent.
The problem with Musk’s rising influence in the Twittersphere and beyond is that unlike a democratically elected leader, Musk is only answerable to himself, and to make matters worse, he has not shown any particular affection for democratic governments. In light of Tesla’s massive investments in China, it is no surprise that he has cozied up to the Chinese Communist Party, but he has gone further than this and suggested that (democratic) Taiwan should be brought under China’s authoritarian thumb. If Musk is faced with the choice of expanding his power, influence, and fortune on the one hand, or siding with democratic governments against their authoritarian counterparts on the other, there is little reason to think he will come down on the side of the angels.
In the end, we should regard Musk’s acquisition of Twitter not simply as a social media story and potential disaster for ESG, though it is certainly both of these. His growing power, coupled with his tolerance (and promotion) of anti-democratic propaganda and anti-ESG perspectives, make this not a tech story, but one of global political significance. And while SpaceX and Twitter are both (now) privately held companies, it also makes a strong case for ethical leadership in social media companies and beyond. Musk’s irresponsibility and not his hostility to ESG, should not spark a corporate race to the bottom. To the contrary, it should make clear the need for other companies act more responsibly, not less.