Comment on this story
comment
As Twitter advertisers race to the exits, the world’s richest man has apparently decided to set fire to his $44 billion investment.
Some might say Elon Musk, who officially became Twitter’s new owner last week, has buyer remorse. But that implies that he actually wanted the thing before he bought it. As early as April, the capricious billionaire made an overpriced takeover bid from which he then tried to withdraw.
Perhaps understandable: Twitter has been plagued by problems, both monetary and moral, for years. By the time Musk made his offer, tech stocks were already plummeting, and it was clear he had no plan to fix the company, nor did it tended to squander a large part of his fortune on it. After some legal back-and-forth, he reluctantly agreed to complete the $44 billion acquisition.
Now Musk, who is also CEO of Tesla and SpaceX (which aren’t necessarily meant to be part-time jobs), is trying to figure out what to do with his new toy.
consequences Catherine Rampell’s OpinionsFollowAdd
He’s already started pursuing some controversial changes. These include charging users for “Blue Check” verification badges, as well as developing a new paid video feature that will likely be used for “adult” material. But its most confusing moves involve simultaneous plans to A) monitor less content while B) increase ad revenue.
These goals are somewhat contradictory.
Musk has long complained about censorship on Twitter, including the suspension of high-profile accounts (like that of former President Donald Trump) and other users accused of hate speech or baseless conspiracy theories (the latter is something Musk himself occasionally trades). Because of this, his takeover has been hailed by free speech absolutists as well as racists, Holocaust deniers, and other tinfoil wearers who claim they are “shadow ban‘ or otherwise silenced for too long.
See, I’m not going to pretend that finding the right level of content moderation is an easy task. People can’t agree on what counts as “misinformation,” so teaching an algorithm to identify it is quite difficult. One person’s fake news is another’s freedom of expression. Allowing more hostile, colorless, or otherwise dubious tweets will drive some users away, but banning them will infuriate other users (and some lawmakers).
Musk has made it clear that he will allow a lot more content that would have been deleted and penalized earlier by Twitter employees — which might be an easier strategy if you’re considering laying off half your workforce.
Even before a concrete new content policy appears to have been implemented, legions of trolls and zealots have already begun to test the guard rails. In the 12 hours after Musk’s finalized purchase, usage of the N-word on Twitter increased nearly 500 percent, according to the Princeton-based Network Contagion Research Institute.
Advertisers, Twitter’s main source of revenue, are nervous about these developments and what the platform could look like in the Musk era. Adidas may not want its logo to appear next to anti-Semitic tweets. (If you don’t believe me, ask Kanye West, now known as Ye.) Family-friendly brands probably aren’t too keen on performing alongside porn, either.
IPG and Havas Media, both multinational advertising companies, have advised clients to stop spending on Twitter for the time being, and an IPG-owned consultancy reports that most clients surveyed plan to take the recommendation.
Some consumer brands have already done so, including General Motors (a competitor to Tesla). The Financial Times reported on Wednesday, citing internal sources, that L’Oréal has also suspended its advertising spend on the platform; The company then released a statement saying it had made “no decision” on Twitter ads.
But you can understand why the global cosmetics and haircare giant is divided on the subject: Skinheads probably don’t buy a lot of shampoo, but they might be on the lookout for new sunscreens.
Musk’s first response to advertisers’ concerns was to reassure brands that Twitter will not become a “free hellscape‘ (too late I think). When that strategy didn’t work, he tried cyberbullying to get her to stay around. In a Twitter poll Posted On Wednesday, he asked his followers whether advertisers should support “freedom of expression” or “political ‘correctness’.” ”
It is difficult to imagine that this strategy will be successful. Either Target and Pepsi and the like think sharing a platform with neo-Nazis and incels is a good use of their ad dollars, or it’s not. It reminds me a bit of the progressives’ recent attempts to scold and punish companies for lowering their prices rather than changing the incentives those companies face.
Musk and the Democratic Party may not have much in common these days. But maybe they can bond over this one shared experience: They both learn how hard it is to get companies to do something that isn’t in their financial interest.